Conclusions and recommendations
1. Ofcom must seize
the opportunity presented by its new structure to undertake a
thorough review, including wide consultation, of how complaints
against the broadcasters should be tackled and on the substance
of a new code upon which the system will rest. In the meantime,
and under the new arrangements, we recommend the continuation
of hearings for complex cases (but we see no good reason why the
complainant cannot make a full record of the
proceedings). (Paragraph 0)
2. We were not at
all convinced that door-stepping, by a film crew, of people who
have refused, sometimes in writing, to be interviewed is really
done to give the subjects of a programme a final opportunity to
put their side of the story. The motivation is surely less judicial
and more about entertaining footage. Such intrusion, and broadcasting
the result, should only be undertaken in important cases of significant
public interest.
(Paragraph 0)
3. The BBC should
respond to the preference of individuals for their privacy complaints
to be dealt with by an external body (previously the Broadcasting
Standards Commission) and should either increase the demonstrable
independence of its own system or refer complaints to Ofcom if
the initial response from the programme-makers does not resolve
the situation. The BBC should participate fully in the Ofcom review
that we recommend above.
(Paragraph 0)
4. Ofcom and all the
broadcasters should engage with the PCC and the press industry
to develop ways of tackling the media scrums that still seem to
gather at the scent of a story. Described by Lord Wakeham as "a
form of collective harassment" this is a matter that must
be capable of being sorted out—especially when it is the
victims of violent events, or their families, that are
involved. (Paragraph 0)
5. Of necessity we
reserve our judgement on the precise arrangements to be established
by Ofcom. This is a matter to which we may well
return. (Paragraph 0)
6. Notwithstanding
the PCC's avowed intent to secure resolution between parties to
a complaint if possible, we recommend that the PCC consider establishing
a twin-track procedure. The new provision would be to respond
to those complainants who did not want mediation but wanted the
Commission to make a judgement in reference to the Code on their
case (after the normal exchange of papers) without this insistence
prejudicing the result. At the very least the Commission should
make an assessment amongst complainants as to the level of demand
for such an innovation. (Paragraph 0)
7. There are a number
of issues that arise in advance of the publication of a story
that do not amount to "prior restraint" or "press
censorship". We believe that the PCC should consider establishing
a dedicated pre-publication team to handle inquiries about these
issues from the public and liaison with the relevant editor on
the matters raised. This team should also handle issues related
to media harassment, including the production and promotion of
guidance to both press and the public, liaison with the broadcasters
and the transmission of "desist messages" from those
who do not want to talk to the media. The first job for the pre-publication
team should be the collaborative work with Ofcom on "media
scrums" that we recommend
above. (Paragraph 62)
8. We recommend that
the Code Committee, Pressbof and the Commission, consider the
following in relation to the Code of Conduct. (Paragraph 63)
9. The Code's ban
on intercepting telephone calls should be updated to reflect the
communications revolution (in line with the provisions of the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) and should include
reference to the privacy of people's correspondence by e-mail
and between mobile devices other than
telephones. (Paragraph 63.i)
10. An additional
element of the Code should be that journalists are enabled to
refuse an assignment on the grounds that it breaches the Code
and, if necessary, refer the matter to the Commission without
prejudice. (Paragraph 63.ii)
11. The Code should
explicitly ban payments to the police for information and there
should also be a ban on the use and payment of intermediaries,
such as private detectives, to extract or otherwise obtain private
information about individuals from public and private sources,
again especially the police.
(Paragraph 63.iii)
12. We welcome the
assurance of the Chairman of the PCC that the selection of candidates
for the role of lay commissioner would be put on a proper, open
and transparent footing from now on. We note his undertaking to
have a further lay commissioner, appointed under such arrangements,
in place before the end of 2003. (Paragraph 65)
13. 67. We believe
that the Commission would command more confidence in the independence
of its membership if it adopted the following
proposals:
14. Lay members should
be sought and appointed for fixed terms under open procedures
including advertisement and
competition. (Paragraph 67.i)
15. Press members
should be appointed for fixed terms from across the industry.
There should be an explicit presumption that they are not there
to represent the interests of their associations but to offer
the benefits of their particular experience whilst acting independently
as members of a quasi-judicial
body. (Paragraph 67.ii)
16. Press members
(and here we include members of the Code Committee) who preside
over persistently offending publications should be required to
stand down and should be ineligible for reappointment for a
period—perhaps the length of a term
of office. Persistence could be defined as "three strikes
and you're out". (Paragraph 67.iii)
17. The lay majority
should be increased by at least one; as provided for in the PCC's
Articles and accepted by Sir Christopher Meyer, the new PCC
Chairman. (Paragraph 67.iv)
18. The Appointments
Commission should appoint an independent figure, also under the
new procedures, to implement the procedural appeals process to
which Sir Christopher has referred. To this responsibility we
would add the task of commissioning a regular external audit of
the PCC's processes and practices—a
version of accreditation. While the "standard" would
probably be unique to the PCC, the methodology has been pretty
well-established throughout the corporate world. (Paragraph 67.v)
19. The Code Committee,
which at the moment is composed entirely of editors, should be
re-established with a significant minority of lay
members. (Paragraph 67.vi)
20. We recommend that
the PCC, under its new Chairman, considers the case for taking
a more consistent approach to foreseeable events that herald intense
media activity and people in grief and shock; and for acting as
soon as possible after unexpected disasters have occurred. This
may be another appropriate responsibility of the pre-publication
team. (Paragraph 72)
21. 79. The text of
a PCC adjudication should be clearly and consistently set out
to ensure its visibility and easy identification as proposed by
Sir Christopher Meyer, the new Chairman of the Commission. However,
we urge that the design of this 'branding' must avoid duplicating
the appearance of an advertisement which may cause it to be skipped
automatically by some readers.
(Paragraph 79)
22. We therefore recommend
that any publication required to publish a formal PCC adjudication
must include a prominent reference to that adjudication on its
front page—in effect a 'taster' for the judgement. (Paragraph
80)
23. 81. In addition
we recommend that the PCC's annual report contains an additional
feature-something familiar and popular amongst
newspapers—a league table showing
how publications have performed against the Code that year. (Paragraph
81)
24. We believe that
annotating press archives as to their accuracy and sensitivity
should be automatic in all serious cases, and certainly all upheld
adjudications, and furthermore that the publication should be
responsible for removing the relevant article from publicly available
databases. (Paragraph 82)
25. 84. We believe
that the PCC, Pressbof and the industry would benefit, in terms
of public confidence, if they formed a consensus around two new
elements of the system; one gently punitive and one modestly
compensatory: (Paragraph 84)
26. Pressbof should
introduce a gearing between the calculation of the registration
fee and the number of adverse adjudications received by a publication
in the previous year; and
(Paragraph 84.i)
27. The industry should
consider agreeing a fixed scale of compensatory awards to be made
in serious cases (which in any case according to the evidence
from the industry and the PCC are few and far between). If these
were fixed in advance, a matter of consensus and relatively modest,
we can see no reason for lawyers to be involved. Consideration
could be given to the making the award to a charity of the complainant's
choice rather than directly.
(Paragraph 84.ii)
28. We strongly urge
the PCC and the industry to consider the matter of complainants'
costs and agree that, where justified complaints have involved
particular financial burdens on the complainant such as the acquisition
of a transcript of a trial or inquest (but not legal fees), then
those costs must be met by the offending newspaper. We believe
anything else to be invidious and a shifting of the burden of
proof from the newspaper, which made the original claims, to the
complainant who has been found to have been traduced or otherwise
injured. In the light of the PCC's battle cry of "fast, free
and fair" we believe this to have nothing to do with the
debate over punitive or compensatory awards. (Paragraph 85)
29. If the Board and
the Code Committee are totally unwilling to accept the introduction
of lay members to the latter, then we believe that the industry
has a sufficient input into agreeing the Code and that Pressbof
should withdraw from the process. (Paragraph 87)
30. We accept the
offer to the Committee made by Sir Christopher Meyer to return
in a year's time to report on progress. This offer will not, however,
substitute for action on our own initiative and we therefore recommend
that the PCC make itself available to give evidence to this Committee
at regular intervals for discussions on progress with its agenda
for change.
(Paragraph 88)
31. 95. We cannot
see how the matter of illegal payments to policemen can fail to
fall within the criteria set out by the PCC for taking the initiative,
or how the issue is different to the example of illegal telephone-tapping
highlighted by the Commission itself. We believe the PCC must
investigate. This may be best accomplished in cooperation with
the Information Commissioner and the Police Complaints Authority
and, if necessary, result in an addition to the Code (such as
occurred on intercepting telephone
calls). (Paragraph 95)
32. On the other side
of the fence, we recommend that the Home Office and police authorities
also take note of the evidence from the editors of The Sun and
the News of the World to us regarding payments to police officers
for information and take steps to review and overhaul, if necessary,
the guidance and measures aimed at preventing such behaviour by
the police and media.
(Paragraph 96)
33. It is for the
Information Commissioner to make sure that all public and commercial
entities are aware of their responsibilities under the Data Protection
Act and put in place adequate training, guidance and other mechanisms
to ensure that those responsibilities are
fulfilled. (Paragraph 97)
34. On balance we
firmly recommend that the Government reconsider its position and
bring forward legislative proposals to clarify the protection
that individuals can expect from unwarranted intrusion by
anyone—not the press alone—into
their private lives. This is necessary fully to satisfy the obligations
upon the UK under the European Convention of Human Rights. There
should be full and wide consultation but in the end Parliament
should be allowed to undertake its proper legislative role. (Paragraph
111)
| 
