1 Introduction
1. A free press is a vital component of a healthy
democracy. Our history shows, and current experience in many other
countries confirms, that this freedom must not be taken for granted.
It cannot be achieved without effort and sacrifice, nor preserved
without vigilance. Long experience has also taught us that the
freedom of the press has to be held in balance with other freedoms
and rights, such as the right of citizens to privacy and to protection
from libel. Moreover, the public has a right to expect high ethical
standards in the press, so for more than half a century we have
had press self-regulation in various forms. Freedom of the press
is therefore a complex matter. Difficult balances must be struck,
and since the cultural, legal, economic and technological context
in which the press operates changes constantly, the balances change
too. There are no once-and-for-all solutions; every age must maintain
the balances as best it can.
2. This inquiry was prompted by concerns expressed
by many, both inside and outside the industry, that the necessary
balance was being lost. On the one hand, it was argued that the
freedom to report was being unjustifiably curtailed, and on the
other that press self-regulation was failing and standards were
falling. These concerns related to a number of recent events and
developments. Chief among the events were:
· the
successful prosecution of the News of the World by Max
Mosley for breach of privacy;
· the
coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and its aftermath;
· the
critical United Nations Human Rights Committee's report on British
libel laws and 'libel tourism';[1]
· the
reporting of suicides in Bridgend in 2007 and 2008;
· Tesco's
libel action against the Guardian in April 2008.
Longer-term developments which were seen to have
placed new stresses on the press and press freedom include:
· the
rise of the internet;
· the
passage of the Human Rights Act, which has had a notable impact
in privacy matters;
· the
growth in the use of conditional fee agreements (so-called 'no-win,
no-fee arrangements') in libel proceedings;
· moves
in the United States to legislate to protect US citizens from
the enforcement of libel judgments handed down in British courts;
· the
long-term decline in newspaper sales and the impact of recession.
3. Scrutiny of such matters has been a regular feature
of the work of this Committee and its predecessor Committee. In
2003, our predecessors published the report Privacy and media
intrusion[2] (discussed
below at paragraph 58), and as recently as 2007 we published Self-Regulation
of the press[3] (see
paragraphs 548 and 549). In the light of the events and developments
listed above, and the concerns they aroused, we felt the time
was right for a wide-ranging inquiry embracing privacy, libel
and standards in the press. Examining all these issues at once
would give us an overview of the various balances between freedoms
and rights that we could not achieve through piecemeal investigation.
4. We therefore launched our inquiry on 18 November
2008 with the following terms of reference:
· To
establish why the self-regulatory regime was not used in the McCann
case, why the Press Complaints Commission had not invoked its
own inquiry and what changes news organisations themselves have
made in the light of the case;
· Whether
the successful action against the Daily Express and others
for libel in the McCann case indicates a serious weakness with
the self-regulatory regime;
· The
interaction between the operation and effect of UK libel laws
and press reporting;
· The
impact of conditional fee agreements on press freedom, and whether
self-regulation needs to be toughened to make it more attractive
to those seeking redress;
· The
observance and enforcement of contempt of court laws with respect
to press reporting of investigations and trials, particularly
given the expansion of the internet;
· What
effect the European Convention on Human Rights has had on the
courts' views on the right to privacy as against press freedom;
· Whether
financial penalties for libel or invasion of privacy, applied
either by the courts or by a self-regulatory body, might be exemplary
rather than compensatory;
· Whether,
in the light of recent court rulings, the balance between press
freedom and personal privacy is the right one.
5. We received more than 170 written submissions
from journalists, editors, lawyers and non-governmental organisations,
as well as individuals who had experienced media intrusion and/or
litigation. Between 24 February and 2 June 2009 we held ten public
oral evidence sessions and one in private.
We visited the Press Complaints
Commission on 4 March and 13 October 2009, and the offices of
the Sunday Mirror on 11 November 2009. We also took the
opportunity to meet the Catalonian Press Complaints Commission
and the editor and staff of La Vanguardia newspaper, during
a visit to Barcelona which primarily focused on the Olympics,
in February 2009, and travelled to America to hold meetings with
lawyers, legislators, press representatives, authors and members
of the UN Committee on Human Rights in Washington DC, Albany and
New York from 29 March to 3 April 2009.
6. On 8 July 2009, after we had concluded oral evidence
sessions, the Guardian reported that the publisher
of the News of the World, News Group Newspapers, had paid
£700,000 to settle legal actions brought by three individuals
who alleged that they had been the victims of unlawful telephone
message interceptions by the newspaper. The Guardian suggested
that others, including Government ministers, may also have had
their voicemail messages accessed.[4]
Given the relevance of these allegations to our investigation
of press standards, and their relation to our previous inquiry,
we reopened oral evidence, holding a session on 14 July 2009 with
the Guardian and the PCC and subsequently receiving oral
and written evidence from representatives of the News of the
World, the Metropolitan Police Service and others.
7. Each time, indeed, we sought to draw this enquiry
to a close, fresh developments occurred which warranted examination
and inclusion. In October, as Parliament reconvened, the use by
an international oil trading company Trafigura of a so-called
'super-injunction' to suppress coverage of a toxic waste dumping
scandal raised constitutional questions about the media's right,
unfettered, to report questions in Parliament. Further controversial
libel actions also occurred, on which we were sent written evidence.
In November 2009, the PCC issued its own conclusions - based on
evidence given to our inquiry - about the further phone-hacking
revelations. In January 2010, Lord Justice Jackson's review of
the costs of civil litigation concluded with the publication of
his final report and the Ministry of Justice issued a specific
consultation with recommended changes to conditional fee agreements
(CFAs).
8. We would like to thank all those who wrote submissions,
gave evidence and held meetings with us. We would also like to
thank our specialist advisers for this inquiry, Professor Brian
Cathcart of Kingston University for his specialist media knowledge
and Sara John for her help on legal matters.[5]
1 United Nations Human Rights Committee, Sixth Periodic
Report of the United Kingdom on the implementation of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), July 2008 Back
2
Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, Fifth Report of Session
2002-03, Privacy and media intrusion, HC 458 Back
3
Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, Seventh Report of Session
2006-07, Self-regulation of the press, HC 375 Back
4
"Revealed: Murdoch's £1m bill for hiding dirty tricks"
- the Guardian, 8 July 2009 Back
5
For information on the interests of the Committee's advisers see
the Committee's Formal Minutes 2009-10, www.parliament.uk/cmscom Back
| 
