APPENDIX 76
Memorandum submitted by Mr Andrew Stephenson
of Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners
I have worked in the field of media law for
20 years. Among the claimants for whom I have acted are prominent
politicians, celebrities from film, television, music and sport
as well as those who find themselves unexpectedly the focus of
attention from the media. I also act for publishers, particularly
of books and magazines, and have acted from time to time for newspapers
(foreign, national and regional) and have for a number of years
worked for a major independent broadcaster.
My experience of dealing with the various broadcasting
commissions has been comparatively limited. Television companies
tend to use in-house lawyers to handle complaints. My impression,
however, has been generally favourable. Complainants, whether
successful or not, have been satisfied that they have received
a fair hearing. It has also been clear to me that broadcasters
also take complaints to the commission very seriously.
My perception of the Press Complaints Commission
is quite the opposite. Despite reservations I had concerning the
lack of any effective remedy for complainants, when the PCC was
first set up, I kept an open mind. However, the feed-back I have
received of the experiences of complainants has served to confirm
my initial fear; that the PCC was established by the press as
a device to divert the government from introducing new legislation,
particularly with regard to privacy, which was seen as a threat
to its commercial interests. I do not doubt that the lay members
of the PCC, have the best intentions; my impression, however,
is that the PCC has become nothing more than a slick public relations
and lobbying vehicle whose primary function is to issue statistics
and literature designed to impress politicians and the public
that it is performing an effective self regulatory function in
curbing the excesses of the press.
I appreciate that it is not the Committee's
function to examine the merits of individual complaints. My perception
of the inadequacies of the PCC is, however, based on a number
of cases which have crossed my desk. One specific example may
be of general illustration. Shortly after the PCC was established,
I was contacted by our client whose complaint to the PCC had not
been upheld. In that case, the journalist claimed to have witnessed
from a position on the street an incident inside a building; the
client's evidence was that because of the sight-lines, it would
have been impossible for the journalist to have seen anything
from the position he claimed unless he had been 20 feet or more
in the air. The PCC claimed not to have the resources to check
and since, with the abolition of the Press Council, there was
no procedure to have oral hearings, there was no means of testing
the evidence through cross examination, so the complaint therefore
could not be upheld. In most cases where there is a dispute concerning
accuracy, there will be a conflict of evidence on which the PCC
declines to adjudicate.
As far as privacy is concerned, all a complainant
can hope to achieve through the PCC is an adjudication that the
newspaper had been in breach of the code of conduct, which the
newspaper is then obliged to report. The PCC has no power to prevent
publication. Accordingly, the only remedy from the PCC for breach
of its code will be further publicity for the complainant of a
matter which the claimant contends should be private. The complainant
also runs the risk that if the complaint is either not upheld
or rejected, it is not uncommon for the newspaper to publish a
further article reporting that fact, re-publishing in the process
the material which was the subject of complaint. In this respect,
the PCC is worse than useless in providing an effective remedy.
It seems to me that for self-regulation to work
effectively it is essential for the regulatory body to have the
power to impose serious sanctions. Accountants, doctors, lawyers
and those who work in the financial services industry may all
face the ultimate sanction of losing their professional practice
rights.
I believe the recent case before the European
Court of Human Rights, Peck v United Kingdom, serves
to confirm the inadequacy of the PCC in providing an effective
remedy for invasion of privacy. In its Judgment, the European
Court emphasised that the PCC has "no legal powers to prevent
publication of material, to enforce its rulings or to grant any
legal remedies to a complainant." I find it particularly
remarkable that the PCC in the Peck case did not even uphold the
complaint.
As a practitioner in the field of media law,
I believe that legislation is necessary to safeguard rights of
privacy. The current state of uncertainty, as the Courts seek
to comply with their obligation to respect the European Convention
on Human Rights without the framework of any statute, is in my
view most unsatisfactory. There has been frequent criticism in
the press recently that privacy rights are a plaything of the
rich and famous; leaving aside the fact that it is the private
lives of the rich and famous which interest the public and sell
newspapers and they are therefore more likely to suffer intrusion
from the press, it is only the rich who are presently in a position
to afford to take the risk of bringing proceedings in an area
of law on which no practitioner can give any confident advice
as to their prospects of success or the level of damages they
may be awarded.
6 February 2003
|
