APPENDIX 102
Memorandum submitted by David Wyn Davies
I am growing increasingly concerned at the prospectof your investigation into privacy and media intrusion becominganother "fudge" that does nothing to protect peoplefrom the excessive powers of the press. In particular I am concernedabout the so-called Press Complaints Commission which most ordinarypeople regard as self-regulation gone mad.
There are two comments I have read which I haveto pick up on.
The first one was from Piers Morgan. He statedthat people could not turn the tap of publicity on and off. Cleverwords from such a crude individual. The issue in my mind is notso much the fact that the press peer into people's lives, butrather what they will do with the information they obtain andhow accurate their reporting of the information will be. Thereis nothing worse than seeing your name in the paper with an articlefull of incorrect or misleading information.
The second comment I would like to bring tothe Committee's attention is that of the editor of The Sun.Rebekah Wade stated that the PCC was the perfect solution forordinary people when the press got things wrong.
Three years ago I had cause to make a complaintto the PCC following a criminal case in which I was convictedunder the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. In short, my accusergave several interviews in which she made numerous malicious falsehoods.Indeed, she had already lied to police. I had made the mistakeof pleading guilty as I felt too unwell (suffering from severedepression) at the time to cope with a prolonged court case (whyI'm about to attempt to have the case re-examined by the CriminalCases Review Commission). A few days following the conclusionof the case an interview she gave the News of the Worldwas published. I was so shocked by the allegations that were madethat I reacted to it and was put on remand for a week. This onlyserved to worsen the psychiatric injury.
After a couple of months I complained to thePCC. Before long I was becoming disillusioned by the process andwas already wary of the fact that the PCC is staffed by newspapereditors. Considering how unscrupulous most newspaper editors are,this is like giving Iraq, Libya, Zimbabwe, North Korea and France(no, the latter is not a mistake) a permanent seat on the UN securitycouncil! Indeed, my suspicions were raised further after readinga website by a couple who had become victims of the News ofthe World's treacherous style of journalism and the PCC'sindifference to the harm their members can cause ordinary membersof the public. The site went on to give details of the numberof complaints that had been upheld by the PCC the previous year.As I recall, the figure was less than 1% of the complaints received.Those who normally receive public apologies from the media arethe royal family and nobody else. When was the last time any memberof the Committee read a public apology printed in one of the tabloidsas they are obliged to do if the PCC finds against them? Are thepapers really that perfect in their reporting?
At the moment, the only realistic option opento the general public is to pursue expensive legal action. Ironicallyone of the ways that has been found is through the forementionedProtection from Harassment Act 1997, as The Sun have alreadydiscovered to their cost. If the Committee are keen to provideprotection to the general public then they must give the publicthe tools by which to seek redress. Where a person has been slandered,the PCC is unlikely to be of any use. Unless you're a celebrity,libel action through the courts is impossible due to the lackof legal aid. Therefore in cases such as the one briefly outlinedabove the press are free to print what they like with impunity.
Of course, the likes of Rebekah Wade would likethe public to use the PCC. Unfortunately for Joe Public, it'sthe equivalent of throwing yourself into a tiger pit.
I hope that the Committee will seek to utilisethe views of those who have been victims of the press. Otherwiseits investigation will bear as much credibility as Arsenal's claimto be the best football team in Europe.
As for me, I'm closer now to making a full recoverythree years on. The damage done was so great that it took thebirth of my daughter (on my birthday last August) to finally kickstart my recovery . . . which had been aided somewhat by counselling.I am now a law student (my accuser was a law student, which nodoubt played a part in her being taken so seriously) and enjoyingthe course but I still have some problems, particularly with concentration,and am still on anti-depressants.
So if you think that skipping the issues isgoing to help, or the press should be allowed to continue as theypresently are, think again.
11 March 2003
| 
