The framework has yet to take shape, but errant press will face tighter regulation after Leveson, writes MARK HENNESSYin London
THE CHARGE that News of the Worldjournalists deleted messages on the voicemail of murdered teenager Milly Dowler played a key role in the closure of the Sunday tabloid and the establishment of the Leveson inquiry into "the culture, practices and ethics of the press".
However, the emergence of evidence this month from police officers that the charge – levelled by the Guardian– was incorrect, and that the messages were probably deleted by the teenager's mobile phone company, may play a not insignificant role in staving off state regulation.
Nothing defends the News of the World'saction, but the allegations around deletion of voicemails meant the tabloid was not just guilty of "bad, shocking, disgraceful and illegal" acts "beyond the pale of anything recognisably human", as media expert Raymond Snoddy put it.
The Guardian'serror was made in good faith and on the best available evidence, but the story's correction and explanation subsequently revealed a petty lack of generosity – even if NOTWwould not have behaved any better if the boot had been on the other foot.
It is, perhaps, just as well that the Guardianmade the mistake it did, since the allegations about phone hacking had been resolutely ignored by the rest of the British press, with a few honourable exceptions, and politicians. The Dowler allegations, however, changed everything. It was that story that forced the Metropolitan Police to launch a proper inquiry, that forced political leaders to abandon their obsequiousness before the Murdochs and forced the creation of the Leveson inquiry.
Throughout the hearings so far, Leveson has kept a rapid pace, requiring all questions to a witness to go through the inquiry’s legal team – which has occasionally thrown up situations when charges have been made against those unable to defend themselves. Sometimes testimony is taken as fact, when it cries out for further questioning.
Nevertheless, the inquiry has shone a penetrating light into the world of tabloids, replete with their sense of outraged self-justification and, most particularly, the morals-free world of the paparazzi.
Countering this, however, will not be easy, particularly since the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression cannot be regulated by one-size-fits-all legislation, if such is attempted.
Before the inquiry began, newspaper chiefs insisted publicly during seminars in October that egregious behaviour among the press was a relic of the past. Following two months of hearings, such arguments could not be made today with credibility.
However, the industry is far from giving up on its fight to prevent state regulation, moving to appoint a former Thatcher cabinet minister, Lord David Hunt, to oversee a fundamental reform of the Press Complaints Commission.
Hunt has a good record, but he faces a race against time if he is to have a new system of self-regulation in place that will be granted a second glance by a sceptical establishment before Leveson produces his first set of findings next autumn. In truth, the most attractive option for the prime minister, David Cameron, in time may well prove to be a mixture of self-regulation, backed by statutory powers and powerful, independent members on a renamed commission.
Currently, the PCC cannot properly investigate, as it is unable to seize files or interrogate under oath.
Nor can it force all newspaper groups to obey even its limited remit, as shown by publisher Richard Desmond's decision to pull the Daily Expressand the Daily Star. Linking the VAT exemption for newspapers to PCC supervision would soften Desmond's cough quickly, while a power to fine, and to order prominent apologies and corrections for the worst breaches, would do much to hamper the worst offenders.
Indeed, a permanent, but slimmed-down version of Leveson, with a respected judge hearing testimony, say, on the performance of a newspaper over the previous six months has much to recommend it.
A trade used to questioning is not used to being questioned. However, Leveson must grapple with a changing media landscape, which he understands better now than he did at the beginning. Television is already tightly regulated, newspapers are badly regulated, and the web is not regulated at all. Making new laws for old ways will not be to the judge’s taste.
Mark Hennessy is London Editor
