31 Oct 11 | Leveson Inquiry
How far the Leveson Inquiry could prejudice the ongoing police investigation into phone hacking, raised last week in a joint submission by the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, took up much of the morning’s hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.
The session was held to discuss the issue raised at last week’s hearing, namely concerns that an individual who is later charged may claim the Inquiry breached their right to a fair trial, as evidence will be heard before criminal trials have occurred. The hearing also debated journalists testifying anonymously, as well as further applications for core participant status.
Neil Garnham QC, representing the Met and CPS, told the Inquiry his concern was not only a risk of prejudicing criminal proceedings, but also the prospect that, in reporting the Inquiry, the media might “go beyond fair reporting” and damage the investigation.
Lord Justice Leveson replied that part one of the Inquiry, which will examine culture, practices, and ethics of the press, must create a “narrative” on which he will base any recommendations. Otherwise, he added, the Inquiry would “not be grounded in reality”.
He also questioned the practicalities of filtering information and evidence through the Met and CPS, which might then be subject to a judicial review. Were either the Met or CPS to raise any “red flags”, Leveson said, “the Inquiry could go on for a lifetime.”
Meanwhile, a legal representative for Surrey Police argued the force should be granted core participant status — which would allow them full accesses to documents produced during the inquiry and entitle them to give evidence either in person or through a lawyer.
He expressed concern that the Inquiry might trigger further bad press for the force, which has been criticised for not pursuing evidence that murdered teenager Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked by the News of the World in 2002. He added that several Surrey Police officers had been victims of phone hacking during the investigation into Dowler’s disappearance.
Leveson said that everyone had to “grin and bear” criticism in the public domain, including himself. “It is what a free press is all about,” he argued.
He also refuted Surrey Police’s argument that not granting them core participant status would severely limit their involvement in the Inquiry. He said the issue was “not contentious”, later adding that if there is anything the force could do to provide him with an accurate narrative, they would be given the opportunity to do so.
Leveson did, however, grant the National Union of Journalists core participant status, adding that one way for journalists to give evidence anonymously — an interest expressed by several reporters, the hearing was told — might be to do so through the union. Leveson stressed that the names of any journalists who had approached the Inquiry team will not be put into the public domain.
He also cautioned against identifying the newspaper with which anonymous witnesses are affiliated, arguing it might lead to the release of material that the paper “would feel obliged to deal with”.
Returning to the issue of the police investigation, Garnham expressed his concern that secret evidence kept by the inquiry and not revealed to the public could raise issues of fairness in criminal proceedings, namely that the evidence may be used in favour of defendant on trial.
Telegraph Media Group and Trinity Mirror were also granted core participant status.
The first hearing of the Inquiry will take place on 14 November, with victims’ evidence to be heard at the high court from 21 November. The Inquiry is likely to hear evidence from witnesses until February 2012.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
27 Oct 11 | Leveson Inquiry
A schedule of hearings and the issue of potential anonymity for witnesses giving evidence were the major discussion points at yesterday’s directions hearing as part of the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking.
The first hearing will take place on 14 November, with victims’ evidence to be heard at the high court from 21 November. It was also announced yesterday that the inquiry is likely to hear evidence from witnesses until February 2012.
Victims include the parents of murdered teenager Milly Dowler, whose voicemail messages were hacked and deleted by the News of the World after she went missing in March 2002, giving her family the impression she was in fact alive and checking her voicemail.
Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, also raised the issue of Lord Justice Leveson potentially granting anonymity to witnesses who may fear for their “jobs or professional reputation” if they give evidence.
Jay said anyone who wishes to give evidence to inquiry anonymously can do so if Leveson makes an order of section 19 of the 2005 Inquiry Act, which restricts public access and protects witnesses’ identities, in agreement with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects witnesses’ rights.
Jay contended, however, that submitting evidence anonymously would strip the possibility of cross-examination.
Leveson pledged he would respect a request for anonymity, clarifying that those making a request should submit their evidence to the solicitor of the inquiry, along with the reasons for their request.
Last week The Guardian reported that the panel sees anonymous evidence “as a way to uncover a true picture of life at Britain’s tabloid newspapers”, having been criticised for not including members with experience of tabloid or regional newspapers. Leveson also expressed yesterday his intention to visit a regional newspaper to “see how it works.”
Another topic addressed was the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service’s fear that suspects in the police investigation into phone-hacking could try to sabotage prosecutions, namely because evidence will be heard before criminal trials have occurred and charges brought forward.
In a joint submission to the Inquiry, the Met and CPS outlined their concern that an individual who is later charged may claim the Inquiry breached their right to a fair trial. Responding to this, Leveson stressed that his priority would be balancing the “absolute requirement” that anyone charged is given a fair trial along with resolving issues “in a way that satisfies public.”
The inquiry, which Lord Justice Leveson has said will focus more about the culture, practices and ethics of the press rather than “who did what to whom”, is expected to take a year to complete.
Rupert Murdoch’s News International is facing over 60 other claims of alleged phone-hacking. Among those suing are Sara Payne, who campaigned with News of the World to amend the law to allow parents to obtain access to information about paedophiles following the abduction and murder of her daughter Sarah in 2000.
Tens of individuals have also applied for core participant status, which will allow them full accesses to documents produced during the inquiry and will entitle them to give evidence either in person or through a lawyer. Among them, the parents of missing toddler Madeleine McCann are due to give evidence regarding invasion of privacy by the media.
A further pre-trial public hearing has been set for Monday 31 October.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
12 Oct 11 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized
The hazy terrain of press regulation formed the core of discussion at this morning’s Leveson Inquiry seminar.
Eve Salomon, chair of the Internet Watch Foundation, kicked off the session by making the case for self-regulation, arguing that the PCC’s successor should be an enhanced model that both raises standards and deals with complaints. Salomon argued the current Press Complaints Commission is merely a mediator,and that having investigative powers that would characterise it as a regulator. Referring to the phone-hacking scandal, she added that “no amount of regulation” will deter criminals.
Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre was scathing, his speech attacked the “anarchic” internet and “elite” journalists who have “disdain” for tabloids, Dacre said the press is already “on the cusp of being over-regulated” due to the courts’ use of the Human Rights Act.
Though Dacre largely defended the PCC — he maintained it was “not a failed organisation” — he did concede that it needed reforming in order to regain public trust, and claimed it had “blunted the Sunday papers’ ability to find sensational stories.”
Any notion of licensing journalists or imposing fines was condemned; of “experts” in favour of licensing reporters, Dacre said: “my own view is they should emigrate to Zimbabwe.”
He added that the press are better behaved now than in the 1970s, during which time “harassment was rule rather than exception.”
Dacre went on to reveal that his newspaper, as well as its sister titles the Mail on Sunday and Metro, will introduce a corrections and clarifications column on page 2 of the paper next week. Currently no other tabloid runs such a column.
Will Moy of independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact followed Dacre, noting that, while some newspapers and journalists are “excellent” when confronted with mistakes, they are the “exceptions”. Citing the Daily Express’s twisting of house price quotes, Moy added that “newspapers cannot be trusted to regulate themselves”, arguing that a regulator was “essential.”
He did see potential for “indirect regulation”, such as a readers’ editor, and added that the PCC needs to have more effective sanctions for dealing with repeat offenders. The readers’ editor of Observer, Stephen Pritchard, also made the case for more internal news ombudsmen, arguing that they could enhance trust (there are currently only two of them in the UK, at the Guardian and the Observer).
Later, the role of corporate governance in maintaining standards was discussed. Labour life peer Lord Borrie made the case for stronger ethical standards, arguing that they should not merely be “something that slips off the tongue of chairman at the annual general meeting.” Non-executive director of Channel 4, Stephen Hill, spoke in favour of “scrupulous” corporate governance, while Trinity Mirror‘s Sly Bailey argued that “no system of corporate governance” was bomb-proof: it could not stop a determined wrongdoer, but may “minimise wrongdoing.”
Damian Tambini, a lecturer on media policy and regulation at the London School of Economics, said it was unhelpful to oppose statutory regulation as a sort of “ogre”, noting that self-regulation might need statutory back up. Cardiff University journalism professor Ian Hargreaves also noted that we cannot compel individuals to join a system, and can only “create a system that’s so good most people want to be part of it.”
For Index CEO John Kampfner, the challenge of the Leveson Inquiry will be “setting out strength of corporate governance and ensuring that regulation doesn’t chill speech.” He added that any future regulation must not lead to any “excess of caution that damages investigative journalism.”
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
Click here for the full text of John Kampfner’s speech at this afternoon’s session of the Inquiry.
12 Oct 11 | Leveson Inquiry, Media Freedom
Index on Censorship chief executive John Kampfner addressed the Levesen Inquiry into culture, practices and ethics of the press yesterday, covering free speech, journalistic standards, and journalism regulation
(more…)
