Greeny News

Hugh Tomlinson QC

exploring options to replace the Press Complaints Commission

As many commentators have noted, the British press is not subject to regulation in the ordinary sense. It must, of course, operate in the civil and criminal law, but the system so-called "self" by the complaints commission is not "regulation" at all. Newspapers and magazines involved have agreed on a code of good practice and establish a system of complaint. The system is mediation, not regulation.

The advantages of this system have been discussed for many years. The CCP is defined as "fast, free and fair," noting the number of complainants satisfied and problems solved. His critics point to his lack of "regular" and to participate and to eliminate the systematic violations of its code - including the "World News", but also in relation to the McCann case. It is now generally accepted that, in the words of Financial Times, Lionel Barber, editor of "The Complaints Commission in its current form is dead. "

What, then, if the CCP to be replaced? What type of regulation of the press should not be in the UK? The Standards Steering trust the media, Martin Moore, recently suggested that there are seven options for reform.

I'll start by looking - in Parts 1 and 2 of this article - in each of these options in turn before suggesting, in Part 3, a possible "eight". This is a proposal for a regulatory system that is voluntary, but with teeth and focused on solving some of the problems identified by the campaign of defamation and the reform of the "superinjunction spring."

In Part 1 of the post, I will consider the options (1) to (3). I want to acknowledge my debt to Martin Moore. This discussion is derived substantially from its analysis and presentation of these options and the resulting problems.

(1) No - the abolition of the CCP, without creating a replacement

This has the advantage of simplicity and practical difficulties to reach the head. Instead of trying all kinds of press regulation is limited by law. Newspapers could, if they wish, establish internal control systems - mediators of readers or publishers, but it would have to respond to any instance. Proponents of this view to that of the United States, where there is no formal system of control of the press, journalistic standards are much higher and there was no "phone-hacking scandal."

But the problems with this method are obvious:

. It would meet most of the public who want a more effective system of regulation, rather than any control system

. Do not handle a wide range of " ethical journalism "- in relation, for example, the intrusion into grief or interview the children - which is not illegal but are currently governed by the code of the CCP. More generally, this means that the positive contribution of PCC in the resolution of complaints will be lost.

. It is likely to lead to more litigation, not less, leaving those who can not afford the right without a remedy.

most consider this option as a "non-runner."

(2) The reform of the PCC - the "CPC Plus" option

is a new cycle of improving the CCP - outlets of its best elements and adding them in the context of "self." Many newspapers, perhaps the majority, and some commentators on this option. Recently recommended, for example, Roy Greenslade. The current may have a greater research capacity, more secular and perhaps the power to fine or award compensation. Martin Moore highlighted the benefits of this approach. In particular:
But again, there are serious problems: