The Leveson Inquiry was set up in response to the public outcry over the behaviour of the press. It started in the early 2000’s, although we didn’t know it at the time, phone hacking and other forms of illegal information gathering were rampant in sections of the UK press. If you don’t think this matters, it’s worth watching The Hack on ITVX to understand the profound impact this had on the lives of ordinary people as well as celebrities and public figures.
This press corruption really came to a head in the public eye when it was discovered that the mobile phone of murder victim Millie Dowler had been hacked by journalists from the News of the World. The hacking took place while the search for Millie was still ongoing and led her parents and friends to think she was still alive. The public outcry that followed led ultimately to Rupert Murdoch’s News International announcing the closure of the News of the World in July 2011 and the establishment, under Prime Minister David Cameron, of the Leveson Inquiry the same year.
Leveson points the way forward
There were meant to be two parts to the Leveson Inquiry. The first would address the culture, practices and ethics of the press, including the extent to which the current regulatory regime had failed. The second would consider the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International and other media organisations and whether the police were complicit in misconduct.
Prior to Leveson, the press in the UK were regulated by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), a voluntary regulatory body consisting of representatives of the major publishers, until its closure in 2014. The PCC had no legal powers, was seen as the industry regulating itself and too closely aligned with the organisations it was meant to supervise.
Leveson found the PCC to be insufficient as a regulator and recommended a new, independent body underpinned by legislation. Membership of the body would be voluntary, but incentivised by a kitemarking scheme and by allowing exemplary damages to be awarded in cases brought against non-participants in the scheme.
Creating a new press regulation body
The structural independence of the scheme would be guaranteed by strictly excluding serving editors, MPs and government officials but including individuals with industry experience. To ensure adherence to the Leveson recommendations a Press Recognition Panel (PRP) would be created by Royal Charter on self-regulation of the press.
The role of the PRP is to recognise self-regulatory bodies against a set of 29 criteria including that it:
- is properly independent, including of the government and the publishers it regulates;
- is equipped with the powers and mechanisms to ensure that those publishers adhere to standards of accuracy and fairness;
- provides the public with proper opportunities to raise concerns about the conduct of those publishers;
- secures access to low-cost arbitration for legal disputes with its publisher members; and
- is adequately funded to do its job.
Only those regulatory bodies meeting all of these criteria can be recognised as an ‘Approved Regulator’.
None of these standards, or the criteria in the Royal Charter on which they are based, would cut across freedom of the press as a fundamental public interest issue.
The Royal Charter was approved in 2013 and the PRP was created in November 2014.
Political retreat and legislative failure
Part 1 of the Leveson Inquiry reported in November 2012 but, while welcoming many of the findings, David Cameron expressed “serious concerns and misgivings” regarding the prospect of implementing the changes with legislation.
Although legislation in support of the Leveson findings was passed in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 Section 40 (S.40), it wasn’t enacted and Cameron halted its implementation. The reasons given included that the potential legal costs imposed by S.40 posed a threat to the “livelihood and sustainability” of the press –the commercial interests of the press were put above the promise of low-cost arbitration for victims of abuse.
The Conservative Party manifestos of 2017 and 2019 formally committed to repealing S.40 and it was finally repealed in the Media Act 2024, under Rishi Sunak’s government.
The commencement of Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry was officially delayed by Cameron until after criminal prosecutions related to the News of the World were completed. However, the Conservative Party’s 2017 general election manifesto included plans to abandon the second part of the Inquiry entirely. This cancellation was formally confirmed by Culture Secretary Matt Hancock in a statement to the House of Commons on 1 March 2018.
The official justification presented was that the government did “not believe that reopening this costly and time-consuming public inquiry is the right way forward”.
IPSO vs Impress – Goliath wins
The press giants didn’t hang about. On the same day as the PCC’s closure in 2014, it was replaced by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). IPSO has said that it will not seek approval from the PRP and so is not an ‘Approved Regulator’ and does not comply with PRP’s 29 criteria.
As a consequence, IPSO is financed and structurally controlled by its large, national member newspapers. Critics, such as the organization Hacked Off, have denounced IPSO as a “sham body” designed and controlled by the very newspapers it purports to regulate. This structural alignment means IPSO fails the fundamental Leveson requirement that the regulator must be independent of its regulated publishers.
Several broadsheet newspapers including the Financial Times, The Independent and The Guardian have declined to take part in IPSO. Nevertheless it regulates more than 1,500 print titles and more than 1,100 online titles.
A comprehensive review of IPSO spanning five years (2018–2022) revealed profound limitations:
- IPSO investigated only 3.82% and upheld 0.56% of the complaints it received.
- IPSO has never issued a fine against a publication, launched a standards investigation or imposed significant sanctions on any publishers.
There is an alternative: IMPRESS (Independent Monitor for the Press), recognised by the Board of the PRP was approved as a regulator on 25 October 2016. It is the only press regulator to be formally approved by the PRP and the only one to implement all Leveson recommendations. It currently regulates over 130 publishers and more than 230 publications, including all Bylines publications.
Back to where we started?
It’s taken 15 years to go from one ineffective press regulator, the PCC, to another, IPSO. Most of the publications that require regulation are still able to regulate themselves with no adherence to the Leveson Inquiry findings and no realistic chance of redress for the average person inappropriately targeted by the press.
The alternative, IMPRESS is doing a great job but is up against the industry giants who have no interest in proper regulation.
Press corruption damages public life and can be devastating for victims. Don’t let it go unchallenged.
