The apparent improvement in press behaviour after the establishment of the Leveson Inquiry may be coming to an end. The “Guardian” reports that the number of “advisory and desist” notices issued in the first 6 months are back to 2010 levels, after a dramatic dip in the second half of 2011. Continue reading
Inforrm's Blog
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Page 525 of 651
What is the future of press regulation in this country? The two men with the greatest power to decide that are David Cameron and Lord Justice Leveson, and when the prime minister gave evidence to Leveson’s inquiry on June 14 they ended the session with a discussion on that very point.
It lasted about 15 minutes and it bears close scrutiny. We reproduce it below. Continue reading
Immediately following my client Luke Cooper’s win last Friday against the Evening Standard and Daily Mail, their lawyer came over to the claimant’s side of the court and said “I truly do hope that was the last ever jury libel trial“.
It had been hard fought, with both sides content for a jury to decide the case, and the first jury trial in a libel case for three years since Tom Bower defeated Richard Desmond‘s libel claim in 2009. Continue reading
The submissions to the Inquiry as part of Module 4 aim to meet its Draft Criteria for an Effective Regulatory Regime. They reflect the broad range of interests of those who have participated in or commented on the Inquiry so far. The proposals range from an enhanced version of the PCC to radical reform which addresses media plurality in general, the future of regional and public interest journalism, and levies on internet businesses which profit indirectly from news online. Continue reading
Defamation is a rich man’s sport. Only the super-rich or those on “no win, no fee” agreements with their lawyers can begin to afford the astronomic cost of a libel action. Why? Because there are too many uncertainties in defamation actions. First and foremost amongst these is ‘trial by jury’, a quite extraordinary hang-over from the past, which in too many cases bears little or no resemblance to justice. Continue reading
How do you define public interest journalism? One of the great conundrums of the Leveson debate is how you protect the kind of journalism that everyone agrees is the lifeblood of democracy: the fourth estate’s watchdog role. Get it right – ideally, enshrine it in statute – and much else follows. But that depends on what it means. Continue reading
The discussion in the first part of this post clearly showed that domestic law did not provide Max Mosley with an effective remedy for his invasion of privacy of which he complained before the European Court. Strasbourg’s finding that art. 8 does not impose a positive obligation on Contracting States to implement a measure where individuals are provided with notification in advance of an intrusive publication being made so that they may seek an interim injunction is thus open to strong criticism. Continue reading
The jury award of £60,000 libel damages to PhD student Luke Cooper was a vindication not only of Luke Cooper’s reputation, it was a vindication of the jury itself and a reminder of what effective justice a jury can deliver. Events in Court 13 last Friday remind us that, when newspapers demonise individuals and refuse to admit they are wrong, there is no more appropriate and telling vindication than the unanimous verdict and award of damages by a jury. Continue reading
The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg handed down judgment in the case of Mosley v. The United Kingdom ((2011) 53 E.H.R.R. 30) on May 10, 2011. The applicant, Mr Max Mosley, argued that art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) imposed a positive obligation on Contracting States to enact a legal measure which required individuals to receive notification from the press in advance of them publishing information that interfered with their private lives. Continue reading
In a post published on Inforrm on 14 November 2011, I discussed the current state of the Voicemail Interception Litigation (“the Litigation”) and the proposed new Voicemail Interception Compensation Scheme (“the Scheme”). This post seeks to bring matters up to date.
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑