(ii) One of those that gave evidence for the
Defendants this morning and made a point of how the system is
abused by Claimant lawyers wrote this to me in response to a claim
letter I wrote for a client who was ultimately vindicated at trial:
"If your firm were foolish enough to
advise your client to issue proceedings, and if in turn your client
was foolish enough to take that advice, then he will learn to
his immense financial cost that he has picked the wrong fight,
over the wrong article, with the wrong newspaper".
(iii) In that
action my client was in effect obliged to appeal a decision by
the PCC which had gone against him. In an attempt to evade liability,
the newspaper ran their case right up till trial on a wholly false
assertion as to what the article actually meant, which hugely
increased the costs and delay of the action. After winning the
trial he was faced with a six figure shortfall in his costs, despite
having merely requested a correction at the outset which the newspaper
had refused.
(2) THE PCC AND
PEACHES GELDOF
(i) I thought it might be helpful if I sent to you and
your colleagues electronically the front page and fifth page of
the Daily Star which carried the Article that I mentioned during
the session, and the front page and page 2 of the Daily Star that
carried the apology.[74]
(ii) This was a form of "redress" which
was sponsored by the PCC which I hope illustrates the point both
that it is in serious need of reform/replacement, and also that
its virulent attack on the Media Standards Trust concerning its
paper should be treated with immense caution.
(3) CFAS
(i) On the issue of the profitability of the press, I
have set out the statistics in my report on CFAs and Reynolds
showing that the current profit of the national press is £1
billion per annum. Just to take Associated Newspapers as an example,
if it were not a hugely profitable organisation why is it paying
Paul Dacre £1.2 million per annum? I strongly suspect that
is more than the four claimant lawyers put together that appeared
before you yesterday.
(ii) It is important for the Committee to remember
the setting in which the argument made yesterday by those representing
the press is made. In effect, there argument was that it is too
expensive for newspapers to breach their own rules—the statistics
showing that when their actions are tested in front of the scrutiny
of a judge/jury they are almost invariably found wanting.
(iii) Before then the point is reached is
where either the newspaper finally concedes that it has got it
wrong, or it is found by a court to have got it wrong, this is
the journey that it must have undertaken:
(a) In breach of its own code (the PCC Code having
been written by the press) the newspaper must have published inaccurate
material having taken inadequate care in checking it (see paragraph
1 (i) of the PCC Code);
(b) The publication at issue has been made by
a newspaper which is a commercial organisation, the publication
therefore being for profit as Piers Morgan makes clear in his
book (The Insider) these decisions are often made on a straight
commercial basis;
(c) The resulting publication is a breach of
the fundamental human rights of the subject of the allegations,
it having now been established via a series of ECHR judgments
that one of the elements of the Article 8 right is right to reputation.
That means that the personal integrity for a phrase commonly used
in the ECHR jurisprudence) of the individual has been wrongly
robbed of them, and the general public as a whole has been misled;
(d) The newspaper must then have breached its
code again by refusing to comply with paragraph 1 (ii), which
says that inaccuracies should be corrected promptly and with due
prominence.
(e) The Claimant is then faced with what is invariably
a very stressful and forbidding prospect, taking on a very powerful
media organisation, which has the power to do it damage, not only
financially, but further damage reputationally. Many clients simply
baulk at that proposition and take the matter no further.
(f) The paper is then put on notice that the
Claimant intends to protect his/her human rights for the benefit
of a CFA, but despite all of the above, refuses to withdraw the
allegation.
(iv) If that point the paper takes a financial
hit it can really only be regarded as self inflicted. Although,
as I explain, I have not yet brought an action against a newspaper
with the benefit of a CFA, I think it is important for the Committee
to consider the arguments that were advanced on behalf of the
newspapers in the light of the above.
(4) THE OPINION
POLL SURVEY
ABOUT THE
PCC
(i) The Committee will find at paragraph 22 of my report
the result of an opinion poll survey that we have undertaken on
the key activities of the PCC. It shows that in many instances,
over 90% of the general public take a different view as to how
it should operate/be constituted than the PCC. A regulatory body
which operates in a way so directly against both the views and
interest of those that it is tasked to protect is in serious need
of reform/abolition.
1. Should the size and position of corrections/adjudications
published by newspapers be:
|
| a. Less prominent than the original; |
4% |
| b. Equal prominence to the original; |
40% |
| c. More prominent than the original. |
56% |
| |
2. Should inaccuracies on the front page be corrected:
|
| a. On the front page; | 66%
|
| b. On an inside page. | 34%
|
| |
3. Should journalists be permitted to speak to children
under 16:
|
| a. Only on issues involving their own or another child's welfare with parental consent;
| 31% |
| b. Only with their parents' consent; |
67% |
| c. Not at all. | 2% |
| |
4. Should the Committee that writes the PCC Code of Practice
be comprised of:
|
| a. Only representatives from the press;
| 6% |
| b. Representatives from the press and the general public;
| 69% |
| c. Representatives from the press and representatives for complainants;
| 24% |
| |
5. Should meetings of the Commission to adjudicate complaints
be recorded by:
|
| a. A transcript; | 3% |
| b. A minute prepared by the PCC; | 1%
|
| c. Both. | 96% |
| |
6. Should a complainant (or his/her representative) be
allowed to attend the meeting of the Commissioners which adjudicate
their complaint?
7. Should there be an independent appeal from PCC adjudications?
8. Should the PCC be able to impose financial sanctions?
|
| a. No; | 0% |
| b. Yes—a fine for the newspaper; |
4% |
| c. Yes—compensation for a successful complainant;
| 2% |
| d. Yes—awarding professional costs to the complainant
| 5% |
| e. A combination of these financial sanctions.
| 89% |
| |
9. Should the Commission be comprised of:
|
| a. A combination of press representatives and non-press members;
| 55% |
| b. Press representatives and representatives for complainants;
| 41% |
| c. Non-press members only. | 4%
|
| |
(i) On the issue of prominence (question 1) only 4% agreed
with the PCC's policy that corrections/apologies should have less
prominence than the original. Well over 90% thought that they
should be at least as prominent as the original, and a striking
56% thought that they should be more prominent than the
original.
(ii) As to question 2, two thirds of those questioned thought
that front page infractions should be remedied by front page apologies.
This is again in stark contrast to the practice of the PCC—notwithstanding
the protestations of Sir Christopher Meyer when he attended before
the Committee in 2003 to give evidence. The practice of the PCC
is very different.
(iii) As to question 3, the PCC Code answers with proposition
A. Only 31% of the population agree. 69% consider that children
should enjoy more protection than the PCC Code provides.
(iv) As to question 4, the PCC considers that representatives
of the press should write the Code. Only 6% of the public agree
with that. The other 94% think there should be some independent
representation on that Committee.
(v) As to question 5, PCC adjudications are only reported
by a minute prepared by the PCC. 99% of the population disagree
with that policy, and require both a minute and transcript of
the meetings.
(vi) As to question 6, complainants are not allowed to
attend adjudications. Only 1% of the public agree with this and
99% think a complainant should be allowed to attend.
(vii) As to question 7, the PCC refuses to permit an
independent appeal from its adjudications. 99% of the general
public disagree with them.
(viii) As to question 8, the PCC refuses to impose financial
sanctions. 100% of the population disagree with that policy.
(ix) The only respect in which the PCC is supported is
that the Commission should be a mixture of press and non press
members (question 8).
February 2009
