This week was the first of Leveson Module 4. The first witnesses were Lords Black and Hunt, setting out their proposal for regulation without statutory intervention. A number of commentators have found their Lordships “philosophical” opposition to statute hard to follow. In the “Guardian” Dan Sabbagh asked whether it was wise for all concerned to try and dodge a Leveson bill. Brian Cathcart argued that Lord Black was appealing to our instinct to say “I just don’t trust politicians” but went to ask “do we trust the editors and proprietors of the national papers any more? Look at their record”. Continue reading
Inforrm's Blog
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Page 523 of 651
The recently published “Judicial Statistics 2011” shows that the number of defamation claims has remained stable, near the low level of 2010. In 2011 there were 165 issued defamation claims in London (where the large majority of claims are made) – as opposed to 158 in 2010 and 298 in 2009. Continue reading
There are at least two ways of looking at the proposals for regulation aired at the Leveson inquiry by Lord Black, who represents editors and proprietors.
His way is to say that this is a rigorous system of “independently-led self-regulation” that preserves us from the philosophically and fundamentally unacceptable possibility of statutory regulation. Continue reading
Over the last few weeks we have published a number of posts about the right to jury trial in libel cases. At present, clause 11 of the Defamation Bill removes the right to jury trial in cases of libel and slander. This will, in practice, mean that libel cases, in the future, will always be tried by judge alone. Continue reading
In a Statement in Open Court today the settlement was announced of a privacy claim brought by singer and X-factor judge Tulisa Contostavlos against her former boyfriend, Justin Edwards. Mr Edwards accepted that he was responsible for causing the publication of the video, without the knowledge or consent of Miss Contostavlos and apologised. Continue reading
In February the “Media Regulation Roundtable” of academics, journalists, lawyers and others brought together under the auspices of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and the Media Standards Trust published a proposal for a new system of media regulation.
The Government proposes to abolish the right to trial by jury in libel cases. Opponents seek the retention of the right in the established form of a “presumption” in favour of libel trials in jury cases unless the case involves “prolonged examination of documents”. Is it possible to find a middle way? It is important to consider the arguments on both sides to see whether there is any possible common ground. Continue reading
On 7 June 2012, in the case Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy (application no. 38433/09)([2012] ECHR 974), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights re-affirmed the importance of media plurality under Article 10 of the Convention. It held, by a majority, that the fact that an Italian TV company could not broadcast, having a license but no allocated broadcasting frequencies, was a breach of Article 10 (and of Article 1 of the First Protocol). Continue reading
Before Lord Justice Leveson can begin to formulate a plan for the regulation of the press, one that meets the criteria he indicated that he favoured when addressing the Inquiry on 28 May 2012, he will have to have a hard look at some practical issues.
It is easy enough, and many have already tried, to put forward broad principles for reform, but a lot harder to devise a detailed, workable system. Continue reading
The Home Affairs Select Committee has published its Report on “Private Investigators”. It recommends the establishment of “a robust licensing and registration system” with a Code of Conduct. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑