This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
British Publishers Lose Initial Challenge Over Press Curbs
As Prosecution Opens Its Case in British Hacking Trial, a Claim of Conspiracy
(about 17 hours later)
LONDON — In a protracted battle over press regulation, British newspaper and magazine publishers lost an initial challenge in court on Wednesday against politicians’ plans for new curbs, as prosecutors in a separate high-profile trial laid out an array of charges against former top editors.
LONDON — The prosecution opened its case on Wednesday at the phone-hacking trial here, telling the jury of nine women and three men that four people involved with the now-defunct News of the World had already pleaded guilty to phone hacking and that he would prove that the illegal acts were “a conspiracy” approved by some of those on trial, including two former editors, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson.
The legal wrestling came hours before an advisory panel of senior politicians, known as the Privy Council, was to seek the formal assent of Queen Elizabeth II to an instrument known as a royal charter governing future press regulations.
Ms. Brooks and Mr. Coulson, along with the other four defendants in this trial, have denied guilt, and the case is expected to take up to six months to conclude.
But it did not signal the end of the contest between the politicians and the press. Newspapers are not obliged to sign the charter, although they are under pressure to do so in order to receive better protection from libel damages. Several publications are threatening to boycott the body set up under the charter and may seek further legal redress at the European Court of Human Rights. Newspapers are also planning to set up a separate regulator of their own.
Opening the case, Andrew Edis, a prosecutor, said, “We say we will be able to show that there was phone hacking at The News of the World” and that jurors had to decide was, “Who knew?”
In a London court on Wednesday, the publishers’ lawyers argued that politicians did not give adequate consideration to their own proposals for press regulation, and sought permission from senior judges to mount a formal legal challenge. Richard Gordon, a lawyer for the press, said the charter proposed by publishers “has simply not been considered fairly,” rationally or lawfully.
Mr. Edis identified the three journalists, who pleaded guilty at earlier hearings under reporting restrictions, as The News of the World’s former chief correspondent, Neville Thurlbeck; a former assistant news editor, James Weatherup; and a former news editor, Greg Miskiw.
Lawyers for the government said the publishers should not be allowed to challenge the politicians’ charter, and denied any unfairness or abuse of power, the Press Association news agency reported.
Those pleas, Mr. Edis said, showed that “there was a conspiracy which involved a significant number of people.”
The judges ruled on Wednesday that the publishers did not have an arguable case, and rejected their request to take their campaign further. Their lawyers said they might appeal the decision.
Glenn Mulcaire, a private detective hired by the newspaper, also pleaded guilty.
The judges also refused to grant an injunction that would prevent the Privy Council from going ahead with its plans, meaning that the politicians’ blueprint for new press regulations may now receive the largely ceremonial royal assent.
The case resulted from a scandal that has been two years in the making and that has prompted new calls for regulating the rambunctious British press.
In the complex arguments that have arisen since a judicial inquiry into the behavior of the rambunctious British press ended almost one year ago with a call for tighter rules, both the press and a cross-party alliance of politicians have formulated conflicting proposals for new rules governed by royal charter.
Efforts toward that end accelerated on Wednesday with the approval of a government-backed media regulatory system that the publishers had earlier failed to stop in the courts. The publishers have proposed setting up an alternative watchdog and many say that they will not cooperate with the more official body.
That will be set up under a royal charter approved Wednesday, because Prime Minister David Cameron did not want Parliament to legislate any press restrictions.
All major political parties have agreed to the charter, which would set up a supposedly independent watchdog group to oversee a media regulator.
But cooperation with the new system will be voluntary, and the publishers have said they will set up their own monitoring system in any event. As an incentive to cooperate with the charter, publishers will be given better protection from libel damages if they sign up.
The main difference between the proposals is in provisions for future modification of the rules, which the politicians want to be the prerogative of Parliament.
The main difference between the proposals is in provisions for future modification of the rules, which the politicians want to be the prerogative of Parliament.
“The politicians claim the charter will protect the press, though the ineluctable fact is Parliament could change it for the worst at any time in the future,” the conservative Daily Mail tabloid said in an editorial published before the rulings on Wednesday. “Journalists would live in constant knowledge that if they angered M.P.s — by exposing another expenses scandal, for example — politicians who already scorn the media could take revenge by making the charter even more draconian.”
“The politicians claim the charter will protect the press, though the ineluctable fact is Parliament could change it for the worst at any time in the future,” the conservative Daily Mail said in an editorial published on Wednesday.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the politicians’ charter “will protect press freedom while offering real redress when mistakes are made.”
But the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the politicians’ charter “will protect press freedom while offering real redress when mistakes are made.”
Royal charters are constitutional instruments used to incorporate bodies that, by their definition, “work in the public interest,” like the BBC.
It will take some time before any new system is up and running and if publishers refuse to cooperate with it, it will mark one more failed effort at moderating the excesses of the British press.
The push for new regulations came in the 2,000-page report of the Leveson inquiry into the British phone hacking scandal, which centered largely on parts of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.
Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson — former editors of the now-defunct Sunday tabloid The News of the World, which Mr. Murdoch closed as the scandal mushroomed in July 2011 — went on trial with other defendants on Monday, charged with several offenses related to the scandal, all of which they deny.
Opening the case against them on Wednesday, Andrew Edis, a prosecutor, said, “We will be able to show that there was phone hacking at The News of the World.”
