When we notice misinformation about the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) and recognition system, we seek to correct it. We will note the misinformation and the correct information on this page. We have also published some myths and facts about the PRP.
Recent press reporting on press regulation and Section 40
Recent reporting around press regulation, following a Labour Party spokesperson talking about Section 40 of the 2013 Crime and Courts Act, has in some cases misreported or misrepresented the current regulatory situation. Section 40 protects news publishers who are members of an approved regulator from paying the other parties’ costs if a claim is brought through the courts rather than raising it through an arbitration system whether they win or lose. It has never been actioned in that Parliament has never commenced it.
Earlier this year the Government announced that as part of the draft Media Bill they would repeal Section 40. Recent reports in several newspapers quoted a spokesperson for the Labour Party saying they would oppose this repeal.
We would welcome Section 40 not only being safe from repeal but actually being put into effect, because not only does it protect news publishers, it would also remove the obstacle of potentially ruinous costs for members of the public seeking redress from a news publisher who was not a member of an approved regulator. This rather fuller picture of the impact of Section 40, in particular protection of the public that is balanced with protection of the press, has been misdescribed in press reports.
Some press reports have used terms such as ‘state regulation’, ‘government-backed regulation’ or ‘state-backed regulation’ when referring to this story. The PRP does not oversee a system of state regulation. It is an independent body set up by Royal Charter with cross-party agreement following the Leveson Inquiry, to ensure that press self-regulators do their job fairly and independently and protect the public from press intrusion, unfair treatment or abuse.
Section 40 also has some flexibility that can be applied by the courts: it allows for discretion for legal costs not to be imposed on a newspaper that is outside the approved regulatory system, if the judge is satisfied that it would be just and equitable to make a different award of costs. Without the driver of Section 40 for the press to join a strong self-regulatory system, the public remains exposed to press intrusion, unfair treatment and abuse.
We are entirely independent, including from publishers and from politicians. We are part of a system that was designed to safeguard freedom of the press and protect the public after the Leveson Inquiry. In keeping with this role, we have outlined some of the current misinformation about the regulation of the press and other news publishers and provided the facts.
When we notice misinformation about the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) and recognition system, we seek to correct it. We will note the misinformation and the correct information on this page. We have also published some myths and facts about the PRP below.
We list the media corrections that we have requested on our website.
If you would like more details, please get in touch. Email office@pressrecognitionpanel.org.uk.
The Government and politicians have absolutely no say or involvement in how the PRP is run or in its decisions, and not even any ability to influence it. The Royal Charter completely separates the Government, Parliament, and politicians from press regulation.
The Royal Charter can be only be amended by a two-thirds majority of each of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Scottish Parliament, and with the unanimous agreement of the PRP Board.
The PRP has no say in how the press operates or how regulators are run. The PRP’s only role is to assess regulators who choose to apply for recognition. The system of recognition and the PRP do not provide any means for the state, for Government, or for politicians to prevent publishers exercising free speech.
This is a misunderstanding of the scope of the recognition system. The recognition system applies equally to publications available online, in print, and both. Generally, if a publication can be sued for what it publishes (online or in print) in England and Wales, the new system of regulation applies to it.
Relevant publishers can choose to set up their own regulator and that regulator can apply for recognition. The Royal Charter envisages multiple approved regulators.
Section 40 would protect relevant publishers that are members of approved regulators, their journalists, and the public. The law would support investigative journalism. Claimants with a genuine legal case would be offered arbitration, and if they turned this down, the claimant would be likely to have to bear all the court costs.
Arbitration is designed to be cheaper than legal challenges in the court. The new system of regulation also includes specific protection for local and regional publishers to avoid causing them financial hardship if the problem occurred. The PRP has a specific power to disapply the arbitration requirements for local and regional publishers.
Additionally, as with the courts, there is a filter system for arbitration, and claimants would need an arguable case before they could take a claim forward through arbitration. Vexatious or frivolous challenges would be filtered out.
The recognition criteria are interlinked, and none is more important than another. If a regulator does not meet one or more of the criteria, it cannot be recognised by the PRP. Unless all criteria are met, the freedom of the press and the public interest are not protected.
In accordance with the Royal Charter and the legal framework surrounding it, only the PRP can assess, grant, and remove recognition. IPSO has not applied to be independently assessed by the PRP.
As part of our consideration of the success or failure of the recognition system, we have reviewed some aspects of IPSO. Based on limited publicly available information, IPSO does not meet the Royal Charter criteria, and it does not provide the public with the levels of protection intended following the Leveson Inquiry.
The option of low cost arbitration alone would not be enough to provide the public protection which the Royal Charter provides for. For any arbitration process to be an effective alternative to the courts for ordinary people, it would need to be mandatory for the publishers concerned and sit within the wider framework required by the Royal Charter.
Get in touch for more information and updates.
Papers and reports from our Board meetings are available online.
