header-logo header-logo

05 December 2012
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Leveson divides opinion

Journalists, lawyers & MPs split over long-awaited report

Newspaper editors must reach agreement on a “tough” independent regulator with powers to impose £1m fines or Parliament will set one up for them, the prime minister has said.

David Cameron said the “clock is ticking” this week, following a Downing Street summit with editors. Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations have divided opinion among journalists, lawyers and MPs.

The Leveson report recommends scrapping the Press Complaints Commission, and introducing legislation to set up an independent press regulator and to enshrine in law a duty on the government to protect the freedom of the press. However, the idea of statutory intervention is spooking many journalists, who fear the result could be amended by future governments, and could inhibit press freedom.

Leveson recommends the regulator handle complaints and impose sanctions for newspapers that break the code, including fines of up to £1m or one per cent of turnover. It would be reviewed every two years by the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom.

It should be established by “the press” and would need to be “truly independent of industry leaders and of government and politicians”. The chair and other members of the body would be independent and appointed by a “fair and open process”.

Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, says statutory intervention does not necessarily lead to government oversight, citing the experience of the legal profession as an example.

“Leveson has taken great care to distinguish between state-run regulation, and a system which is put into motion and recognised by statute,” he says.

However, Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, says: “What nobody needs and Liberty cannot support is any last-resort compulsory statutory press regulation—coming at too high a price in a free society.”

Issue: 7541 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll