| 1. | We note the assurances of the Chairman of News International that Mr Goodman was acting wholly without authorisation and that Mr Coulson had no knowledge of what was going on. We find it extraordinary, however, that the News of the World was prepared to apply one standard of accountability to the £105,000 retainer paid to Mr Mulcaire and another, far weaker, standard to the substantial cash payments paid to Mr Mulcaire by Mr Goodman. The existence of a "slush fund" effectively can only further the belief that editors condone such payments—on a "no need to know" basis—as long as they provide good copy. Self-regulation must require vigilance by editors, otherwise the impression may be given that editors will turn a blind eye as long as good stories are the result, a practice of which at least some editors are guilty, according to the General Secretary of the NUJ. We also find it extraordinary that in their investigation into the case the PCC did not feel it necessary to question Mr Coulson on these points. (Paragraph 21)
|
| | |
| 2. | The events leading to the conviction of Clive Goodman amounted to one of the most serious breaches of the Code uncovered in recent times. We are in no doubt that the Editor of the News of the World was right that he had no choice but to resign. By doing so, a clear message has been sent that breaches of this kind cannot be tolerated and that editors must accept final responsibility for what happens on their watch. (Paragraph 22)
|
| | |
| 3. | We welcome the steps that have now been taken by the News of the World to introduce more stringent controls over cash payments by its staff. The recommendations on newsgathering methods issued in May 2007 by the Press Complaints Commission should be adopted as a matter of course by all newspaper and magazine publishers. (Paragraph 26)
|
| | |
| 4. | We are not convinced that the Information Commissioner should feel debarred from releasing to their own employers the names of individual journalists identified in invoices obtained under Operation Motorman. In any case, we do not see the Information Commissioner's decision as a valid defence for newspaper editors, some of whom seem to have made minimal effort to establish whether their employees had obtained information illegally (or whether they had done so ostensibly in the public interest but without having secured the necessary authority). The fact that an agency which was regularly accessing databases illegally was being used by journalists throughout the industry, without any apparent questioning from editors, is very worrying. We find claims that all of the transactions involving journalists were for the obtaining of information through legal means to be incredible and it is a matter of great concern that the industry has not taken this more seriously. The lack of any prosecutions or convictions of journalists is no defence. One of the principal arguments for self regulation is that it is more effective than statutory controls. If the industry is not prepared to act unless a breach of the law is shown to have occurred already then the whole justification for self-regulation is seriously undermined. If self-regulation is to continue to command confidence and support, editors will need to be seen to be pro-active in investigating any potential breach of the Code of Practice. (Paragraph 33)
|
| | |
| 5. | We believe that sufficient safeguards exist to protect legitimate investigative journalism and do not believe that the introduction of custodial sentences for offences under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 would have the chilling effect claimed by the press. Given the evidence that breaches of the Act have not been treated with the seriousness which they warrant, we therefore support the decision of the DCA, and subsequently the Ministry of Justice, to introduce the necessary legislation. (Paragraph 36)
|
| | |
| 6. | We conclude that editors, in failing to take care not to use pictures of Kate Middleton obtained through harassment and persistent pursuit, breached Clause 4(iii) of the Code of Practice. […] The Press Complaints Commission took too long to act to protect Kate Middleton from clear and persistent harassment. We note that the public sympathy enjoyed by Kate Middleton may have been a factor behind News International's decision to stop using paparazzi photographs. Others who may not have the same public support nevertheless are entitled also to protection, and the PCC needs to be even more vigilant on their behalf. The Commission should be readier to depart from its usual practice of issuing a desist notice only in response to a request. However, we recognise the force of the argument that an individual who seeks the protection of the PCC should make a formal complaint. (Paragraph 46)
|
| | |
| 7. | To draft a law defining a right to privacy which is both specific in its guidance but also flexible enough to apply fairly to each case which would be tested against it could be almost impossible. Many people would not want to seek redress through the law, for reasons of cost and risk. In any case, we are not persuaded that there is significant public support for a privacy law. (Paragraph 53)
|
| | |
| 8. | We do not believe that there is a case for a statutory regulator for the press, which would represent a very dangerous interference with the freedom of the press. We continue to believe that statutory regulation of the press is a hallmark of authoritarianism and risks undermining democracy. We recommend that self-regulation should be retained for the press, while recognising that it must be seen to be effective if calls for statutory intervention are to be resisted. (Paragraph 54)
|
| | |
| 9. | We nonetheless support the inclusion in staff contracts of a clause requiring adherence to the Code of Practice as a condition of employment, which we believe would safeguard journalists who believed that they were being asked to use unethical newsgathering practices. (Paragraph 58)
|
| | |
| 10. | We believe that it was right for the PCC to extend its remit to cover editorial audio and visual content on newspaper websites. Questions remain, however, about whether it should have gone further. Editors bear a measure of responsibility for all content on their publications' websites, whether or not they have editorial control over it. (Paragraph 61)
|
| | |
| 11. | We support the principle of seeking a resolution of a complaint through conciliation and without going to formal adjudication, although we believe that it would be helpful to publish details of the resolution if the complainant so wishes. We believe that such a practice would enhance the public's view of the effectiveness of the Commission and would strengthen the understanding by the press and by the public of the principles which underlie the Commission's work. (Paragraph 70)
|
| | |
| 12. | We do not find all the PCC's arguments against the introduction of fines convincing. While there is little evidence that the industry would support financial penalties, if that was the price of maintaining a self-regulatory system the likelihood is that they would accept them. However, we accept that giving the PCC powers to impose fines would risk changing the nature of the organisation and might need statutory backing to make the power enforceable. This would be a major step which we would not recommend without a broader examination of the subject. (Paragraph 72)
|
| | |
