Written evidence submitted by Charles
Russell LLP
I am a partner in the solicitors' firm of Charles
Russell LLP. I have specialised for over 20 years in media-related
litigation. As well as acting for media organisations, largely
in the field of TV (such as ITV and Channel 4), I also act for
individuals and entities in media-related complaints and litigation.
For example I am retained to advise employees and artists of ITV
when they come under the media spotlight, and also to advise The
FA and its senior employees (including the England Manager) in
relation to libel and privacy matters.
Each set of facts in media-related problems demands
its own particular strategy for resolution. It is wrong to think
that the PCC ought to (or should ever be expected to) provide
the sole source of resolution and remedy for each and every press
problem, but equally wrong to think that this means the PCC is
not a useful organisation, or is in some way failing in its role.
It is the job of those advising individuals and entities
with problems concerning the media to decide on the most appropriate
and proportionate strategy in each case, combining the various
options available to achieve the best result for the client in
the particular circumstances. These options include direct negotiation
with eg newspaper in-house lawyers (by reference to both the law
and the PCC's code), discussion with the PCC eg in relation to
any ongoing intrusion, pre-publication legal remedies such as
injunction, and subsequently (following publication) complaint
to the PCC, alternative dispute resolution such as a negotiated
settlement, or direct litigation.
I have found the PCC and the self-regulatory
regime to be a useful element in the armoury available to individuals
and companies who have difficulties with the press, to be deployed
when certain types of issue arise. Where problematic press coverage
includes factual inaccuracy (short of libellous statements), or
where intrusion is an issue (eg individuals being pursued or having
their homes surrounded by journalists or photographers), the PCC
has in my experience often provided valuable elements of the strategy
to be adopted. In these days where the Courts are stressing the
need for parties to a dispute to engage in alternative dispute
resolution wherever possible, and in any event to ensure that
any action is "proportionate", the PCC can provide a
cost-effective mediation process for resolving a large category
of what one might term "low profile" complaints, factual
inaccuracies etc. in a proportionate and timely manner.
Where the complaint is one of libel but is not
particularly serious, a correction published in the paper (and
hence showing up on internet searches) is often enough for a client,
especially where the client is impecunious and a CFA may not be
appropriate. The PCC can in this way level the playing-field for
a large number of complainants facing the fearful prospect of
taking on a press organisation.
The PCC cannot however be expected to cover
problems which arise in relation to the press where serious, out-and-out
breaches of the law are committed by the press. This often seems
to be where journalists and editors think the story is so good
that it is worth their while to forget or seek to evade the rules.
Where the press ignore the provisions of the
PCC's Code and the general law in relation to both privacy and
libel, and acts are committed which constitute legal wrongs which
cause damage, I think the PCC is an inappropriate vehicle for
appropriate redress to be secured. The PCC cannot be expected
to provide a parallel tribunal to the Court process. Where tortious
and other acts are committed by the press, a Court of law is the
appropriate and proportionate forum for redress of any damage.
Hence, for example, it seems to me proper that the recent McCann
cases were pursued in through Court action, since serious wrongs
had been committed, and the press seemed to have taken it into
their heads to ignore the law as well as the provisions of the
Code.
It should be borne in mind that those headline
cases are very much the minority, and should not obscure the potentially
useful role of the PCC in a far greater number of less lurid press-related
issues. Where the press enjoys any kind of freedom, and depends
on profit for survival, there will always be a relatively small
number of high-profile cases where editors will try and flout
(or at least get round) the law or the self-regulatory regime.
That does not mean the law or the regime are necessarily deficient.
January 2009
| 
