LEVESON: Module 4 - Statement dated 25 June 2012

by **Tony Bennett** 27.06.12 13:28

Lord Justice Leveson:

1. Throughout this Inquiry, I have been very concerned to ensure that core
participant status (with all the attendant cost) was only conferred on those
who fall fully within Rule 5 of the Inquiry Rules 2006. In the main, therefore, I
have considered each of the three evidence gathering modules separately
although I granted core participant status for all modules to all newspaper
groups who sought such status, to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan
Police and to the National Union of Journalists. As for the group appearing
for specific members of the public who complained that they had been
victims of unlawful, unethical or inappropriate behaviour at the hands of the
press (described throughout the Inquiry and in this ruling as ‘Core Participant
Victims’), I dealt with their status for each module in turn and the constituent
members of the group changed slightly before module 2 (concerning the
police) but very substantially for module 3 (concerning politicians). Different
core participants representing other interests have joined and left at
different stages.

2. Module 4 is different. Although there is some evidence to be gathered, it
concerns the future focusing particularly on press regulation. The key
questions are on the Inquiry website at
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Key-
Questions-Module-4.pdf and what are no more than draft criteria for an
effective regulatory regime (intended for discussion and not, as some have
thought, a pre-determined, definitive template) at
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Draft-
Criteria-for-a-Regulatory-Solution.pdf. It is also different because of the way
in which information will be circulated. For each of the three evidential
modules, witness statements were confidentially circulated to core
participants in order that they could suggest questions; the statements were
only made public as (or immediately after) the evidence was given. For this
module, proposed regulatory solutions have all been or will be placed in the
public domain well in advance of the evidence of those who propound them.
In that way, all those who are interested in the future of press regulation (in
whatever form) can submit questions or raise concerns.

3. On 30 May 2012, I asked for applications by those who sought core
participant status for module 4 to be submitted by 4.00 pm on Friday 15 June
2012. I now turn to these applications against the background of the
principles set out in earlier rulings on core participant status.

Core Participant Victims

4. Collyer Bristow (who represented these core participants in module 1 and,
through Bindmans, in modules 2 and 3) apply for core participant status to be
granted to 8 individuals who, between them, cover all three previous
modules. They are Bob Dowler, Mary-Ellen Field, Hugh Grant, Jacqui Hames,
Dr Evan Harris, Dr Gerry McCann, Max Mosley, Lord Prescott and Mark
Thomson. I am particularly pleased to see that applications have been made
by Mr Dowler and Dr McCann not least because, during the course of his
evidence, the Prime Minister had an exchange with me that specifically
referred to them. It ran as follows (Day 86 pm, 14 June 2012 page 65 line 17
et seq):

“LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: … And I entirely agree that
swift redress is extremely important. Of course, that
redress must be capable of being enforced.

PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Yes. You can't opt out of it. You
can't have a situation now where people don't go to
the PCC because they feel they're going to have to
relive the nightmare all over again and probably not
get a reasonable outcome at the end of it. But I think
this is the space we're in. How do we deliver that? Is it
possible to do it without statutory backing, with
statutory backing, with statutory backing with
guarantees? …

… LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm not ruling any possible
solution out. I made it abundantly clear to the editors
and to Lord Black and Lord Hunt that it is the problem
of the press just as much as it's my problem, but their
solution has to work for me.

PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And what you essentially have
identified in slightly different words, but with exactly
the same fervour, are the criteria that make it work for
me, and if it doesn't satisfy the type of requirements
that you've just spoken of, then it doesn't work for me,
whatever.

PRIME MINISTER: It doesn't work for me either. But the
point is it doesn't work for the Dowlers, or the
McCanns. That's the test.”

5. As the Prime Minister recognised, the contribution of those who consider
themselves to have been victims of unlawful, unethical or inappropriate
behaviour at the hands of the press is extremely important and I have no
doubt that they have a clear interest in the approach which might be adopted
to any complaints that might in the future arise (whether from them or from
others). I have no hesitation in granting these specified individuals core
participant status, continuing the nomination of Collyer Bristow as their
recognised legal representatives.

Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBoF)

6. PressBoF is part of the status quo; it operates a levy on newspaper and
periodical industries to finance the Press Complaints Commission and is also
responsible for the Editors’ Code Committee. The appointment of the Chair
of the Press Complaints Commission was in its gift. With some force, it is
argued that it has performed a significant role in relation to the
establishment and funding of the present system and has a detailed
knowledge of the way in which media standards can be regulated. I further
recognise that it will be directly affected by the recommendations of the
Inquiry and that it has prepared one of the detailed models for future
regulation of the press.

7. Also advanced as reasons for the grant of core participant status is the
possibility that the present system might be subject to explicit criticism and
its involvement in the preparation of one of the detailed models for the
future. I am less impressed with these arguments. Such concerns as have
been expressed (which I recognise could form the basis of possible criticism)
will not be grounded in the evidence emerging in module 4 regarding the
future, but rather from module 1; as for the future, many have submitted
detailed proposals and witnesses supporting those that are to be tested have
the opportunity to participate that is described in Rule 10. Putting these
arguments to one side, however, I conclude that PressBoF does satisfy the
criteria set out in Rule 5 and I grant it core participant status for this module.
On the basis that there is no question of a conflicting responsibility, I am
prepared to nominate Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP (who also act for
Associated Newspapers Ltd) as its recognised legal representative.

The Government Core Participants

8. In relation to module 3, I granted core participant status to members of the
Government, namely: the Prime Minister; the Deputy Prime Minister; the
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; the Secretary of State
for Culture, Media, Olympics and Sport; the Secretary of State for Education;
the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice; the Home Secretary;
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For slightly different reasons, each had
a clear interest in the issues covered and, in relation to some, their evidence
dealt, among other things, with issues touching the public interests and
policy that may be relevant in module 4. It is argued that the Government
has an equally clear interest in the detailed consideration of proposals for
potential press regulatory solutions not least because the Government will
bear the responsibility, having considered the findings of the Inquiry, for
formulating and delivering policy on these issues.

9. I see real advantage in whatever assistance can be provided by those with
responsibility for policy in the areas that are the subject matter of module 4
not least because the Inquiry can be forewarned of practical issues which the
relevant ministries have considered and may or may not have yet resolved in
promulgated policy. That is not to say, however, that all the Ministers who
were entitled to participate in module 3 are in the same position. The Prime
Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have over-arching responsibilities for
all Government policy; the Secretary of State for Culture, Media, Olympics
and Sport has specific responsibility for the press; and the Lord Chancellor
and Secretary of State for Justice has responsibility for data protection, the
civil law and civil procedure: they are all highly material and I grant each core
participant status. The Home Secretary, although one of the Ministers to
whom I must report, is concerned with the aspects of the Inquiry which deal
with the relationship between the press and the police which is not covered
by module 4. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the
Education Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were properly
involved as core participants in module 3 for different factual reasons; what
might be their general interest in the Inquiry (even enhanced by their cabinet
responsibility for agreeing policy) is, however, not sufficient, in the exercise
of my judgment and discretion, to justify granting that status to them for this
module. In their cases, the applications are refused.
Media Standards Trust

10. The Media Standards Trust was established in 2006 to find ways to foster
high standards in news on behalf of the public and, since then, has raised
concerns about the effectiveness of self regulation. In February 2009, it
published a report ‘A More Accountable Press’ and has researched options in
other sectors and other countries. It is independent of the industry and
government.

11. On 14 September 2011, at the commencement of the Inquiry, I considered
applications by Index on Censorship and English PEN for core participant
status. I then said (at para. 34):

“I have no doubt that both groups have significant and
valuable experience which will assist the Inquiry both
in relation to evidence and submission as I seek to
establish the narrative, and consider whether, and if so
in what form, regulation of the press ought to be
considered. Further, in one sense, both have a
significant, albeit not, perhaps, direct interest in an
important aspect of the matters to which the inquiry
nature of her complaints. As for the future, she writes about how what has
happened to her could not have happened in the United States, how
aggressive newspaper lawyers can be and how her close analysis of the
evidence in the Inquiry has helped further her ideas about the way forward,
particularly in relation to the public interest in obtaining redress, issues of
corporate governance, rights of reply and the balance of Articles 8 and 10 of
the ECHR. She also recounts a conversation with the Irish Press Ombudsman
who confirmed that their system would not be as effective without the
backup of the Irish Defamation Act.

16. Finally, Ms Decoulos complains that whereas most questions suggested by
core participants to counsel have been asked, her suggestions have been
‘nearly always refused’. Suffice it to say that I am fully aware that counsel to
the Inquiry take their responsibilities under Rule 10 very seriously and ask
questions that they believe are sufficiently pertinent and relevant to the
issues then being addressed irrespective of their source.

17. I understand the wish of Ms Decoulos to be involved more in the work of the
Inquiry although I am concerned that she has litigated adverse decisions to
an extent that might be considered vexatious. Suffice to say that she is even
further away from satisfying Rule 5 in relation to module 4 than in relation to
earlier modules and this application is also refused. Having said that, if she
has ideas as to the future, as I have said before, I would be happy for her to
reduce them into writing and submit them to the Inquiry where they will be
fully considered; in that regard, I confirm that the Inquiry has indeed called
witnesses who have responded to the website inquiry without previously
having been asked or required to provide evidence.

Ms Caroline Mikuta (formerly Martin)

18. Ms Mikuta seeks what she describes as “core witness status” for module 4 of
the Inquiry identifying the key areas upon which she would like to make
representations as:

“1. Code of conduct of journalists, advertising staff,
publishers and media management.
2. Ownership of news sources related to single,
corporate and small concern supply.
3. Intimidation of competitors.
4. Intimidation of any individual or body who show
preference to one news provider over another. This
could relate to those producing output, a journalist or
other, their sources, whether a member of the public, a
professional body, film/pop celebrity, readership and
advertisers choosing one media outlet over another for
whatever reason.
5. Pornography and lewd contentious material
presented as news which like the above has greatly
contributed to amoral and declining standards in
society as a whole.”

19. In addition to outlining her thoughts, Ms Mikuta provides a “briefing” on
herself and explains the background as a proprietor of a free newspaper.
Reading the correspondence, it appears that she seeks to be a witness rather
than a core participant. Whether, at this stage, it is appropriate to call her or
to read her evidence into the Inquiry will be decided by the team having
regard to the importance or her account to the narrative that I am seeking to
establish and the extent to which she illustrates generic issues relating to
culture, practices and ethics as opposed to providing a fact sensitive account
which time will not permit me successfully to unravel or which in any event
would not sufficiently assist the narrative. As for core participant status (if
that is what she has truly sought), bearing in mind the approach which I have
adopted to this issue throughout the Inquiry, I do not consider that she falls
sufficiently within Rule 5 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 to justify core participant
status. This application is also refused.
25 June 2012

by mira2 27.07.12 1:46

evening Tony,

I have come to the conclussion that the Leveson enquiry will have long ranging implications for Joe public who funded it, yet had no say in the matter, a worthwhile exercise no doubt. It tells us nothing that we did not already know, it just gives it some credance. Pointless exercise, if the lingleaders are not incarcerated for life. We know that no one is going to be beheaded or get flogged, or even denied 3 meals a day, or have to part with their riches, and we know that the big guys who control these organisations can't be messes with.

So it's business as per usual, HMRC collections supposed to be used wisely on behalf of the people of this country, squandered willy nilly to add to the abyss.

It is so easy to blame the politicians for our woes, end of the day if we are realistic, it is out money that runs the show, we have the power to demand that it is spent wisely. It is worrying.

Tony, if you are on over the weekend I will make contact with you.

Night

by **tigger** 27.07.12 13:18

History repeats itself.
Go back to Rome, where the plebs didn't care as long as they had bread and games.
Little has changed.

The little Latin I remember is from one of Cicero's speeches on - guess what - conspiracy!
Quo usque tandem, Catalina, abutere patienta nostra?

How much longer, Catalina, will you continue to abuse our patience? I'm beginning to feel exactly like Cicero. Fantastic speech, worth reading.

by mira2 01.08.12 3:06

tigger on Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:18 pm

History repeats itself.
Go back to Rome, where the plebs didn't care as long as they had bread and games.
Little has changed.

The little Latin I remember is from one of Cicero's speeches on - guess what - conspiracy!
Quo usque tandem, Catalina, abutere patienta nostra?

How much longer, Catalina, will you continue to abuse our patience? I'm beginning to feel exactly like Cicero. Fantastic speech, worth reading.

Latin? forget it, the Tapas Group do not even have basic English skills (according to their recorded police statements) yet the majority of them appear to be UK NHS medical professionals.
It is pretty obvious by now that the UK Government of the day had reason to protect this bunch of misfits, and the current administration were handicapped by their reliance on Murdoch ( who from what we can see was pretty much New Labours behind the scenes dictator), to get them into office that they had little choice but follow the leader.
All the more reason that we the public speak out and demand that the imposters are exposed and shown up for what they are.
The Madeleine's of this world depend on us the public to rights the wrongs and give them the voice they don't have. (Bit late in the day for Madeleine, but never to late for many suffering children out there).
Remember the under 18 year olds have no vote, hense no voice, they are dispensable, they need those of us with a vote to speak out on their behalf and force Governments to put policies in place that put the interests of minors before that of all others. If we cannot, and will not, put our childrens welfare above that of our own ambitions, we have no right as a nation to dictate to other nations as to how they should conduct themselves.
If the UK's answer to childrens issues is electing Kate McCann as an ambassador for missing childen, we know in our hearts that the system is not fit for practice.

by Gillyspot 01.08.12 6:51

Tony Bennett wrote:Lord Justice Leveson:

17. I understand the wish of Ms Decoulos to be involved more in the work of the
Inquiry although I am concerned that she has litigated adverse decisions to
an extent that might be considered vexatious. Suffice to say that she is even
further away from satisfying Rule 5 in relation to module 4 than in relation to
earlier modules and this application is also refused. .

[/font][/font]

Seems the fact that the McCanns' have been as least as litigious as Ms Decoulos makes no difference when you are a McCann.

by **tigger** 01.08.12 6:52

The Leveson seems to pass most people by.
It's quite ridiculous to publish a verbatim conversation with the PM in this report. I wonder why he did that.

The sad fact is that so many people don't like to be 'involved' even if they know that the whole case is an absolute impossibility. Either can't be bothered or 'what can we do?' whilst knowing what is happening is so very wrong.

I too, think that the problem lies with the previous government and despite the freemasonry and paedophilia flags coming up, I think the main motive for the control and cover up is money. It's always money and the whole 'abduction' was almost a carbon copy of the advice published in the Disclosure Project (see Steel Magnolia) for this to be accidental. The money to be made from such a project would run into billions in no time.

It's always the money.

by mira2 04.08.12 3:31

Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:52 am

The Leveson seems to pass most people by.
It's quite ridiculous to publish a verbatim conversation with the PM in this report. I wonder why he did that.

The sad fact is that so many people don't like to be 'involved' even if they know that the whole case is an absolute impossibility. Either can't be bothered or 'what can we do?' whilst knowing what is happening is so very wrong.

I too, think that the problem lies with the previous government and despite the freemasonry and paedophilia flags coming up, I think the main motive for the control and cover up is money. It's always money and the whole 'abduction' was almost a carbon copy of the advice published in the Disclosure Project (see Steel Magnolia) for this to be accidental. The money to be made from such a project would run into billions in no time.

It's always the money.
___________
tigger,
I would tend to agree with you that the freemasonry and paedophilia flags in this case are not enough to protect this group of medical professionals.
This could not have been about money, there had to have been something at stake that money can't buy back in May 2007 for the Givernment of the day here in UK to have pulled out all the stops to protect this particular group of individuals, and attempt to raise Gerry and Kate Mc Cann to the staus of Ambassadors, knowing that they were suspects in the case of a missing child, a case where they and their fellow medical proffessional baby sitters have yet to fully cooperate with authorities in order to eliminate themselves from the enquiry and allow the case to move forward. No Government leader with an ounce of integrity would get mixed up in a case like this unless they felt they had NO choice. The question is, why under a new administration are we seeing the same old, same old.
The only link I can see is Murdoch. At that time Blair and Brown were at loggerheads so it would stretch the imagination way to much to believe that this pair could have been in cahoots about anything whatsoever. Pleasing Murdoch was all that mattered to either of them, Murdoch was the man who they both relied on to make or break their career. Not forgeting that Gerry's first phonecall after 10pm May 3 was to an old Uni mate so just so happened to be New Labours policy maker at the time. I feel that call is of some importance.
tigger, going round in circles, do you think it is time the UK had a third party (forget the Lib Dems) ? I hear the Icelanders have done just that, a whole different outlook, forward thinking out with the bullshitters and money grabbers.

by **tigger** 04.08.12 7:20

Hello Mira, One niggle: Could you please just click on the 'quote' box in the top right hand corner of the post you want to quote? It's quicker than cut and paste and a lot clearer. I'm afraid it's one of my pet hates - it's happened a few times that other members had so mixed up my post with theirs that it seemed that their opinions (which were diametrically opposite to mine) were mine.

Re the 'third party'. I must confess I've only voted once in my life, mainly due to living abroad. At the moment NL doesn't have a government, Belgium didn't have one for a record period of more than a year and there's absolutely no difference in daily life. Just less politicians on TV which can only be a good thing.
NL has in the region of 10 to 12 political parties so the government is always a coalition.
The advantage is that it isn't the system of the UK to have two opposing parties, with a parliament building to reflect this. Imo the UK is always suffering from this concept of 'the posh and the poor' which is a complete fallacy. The press doesn't help either, focussing on personal details of the lives of politicians instead of on their policies.

I think politicians are puppets and have been for a long time. Imo Kennedy was the last real president of the US and he was killed so that the war in Vietnam could go on and make money for the industries.
So imo it would make little difference to have more parties. The press are happily reporting the imminent demise of the Euro - which is engineered by the US to save their bankrupt dollar. Saddam Hussain was attacked because he was going to accept euros for his oil. The oil dollar is the only one worth having and the US could not allow it. Same with Libya - a country where at least 80% of people were perfectly happy, had a good socials support system and no debts. Gadaffi was going to bring in the golden dinar, their own currency based on gold. That's what killed him.

All the above just to illustrate the power of the money men, the industrials and the necessity for constant war. E.g. the Falklands war saved quite a few defence industries from bankruptcy.
All I ask of a politician is that he/she loves the country they represent which is why I have time for bumbling Cameron, whereas the Blairs tried to change the image of PM to a presidential one. He still is, Blair tried to become 'President of Europe' - a dangerous idea if ever I heard one. Meanwhile he dragged the country into a war no-one wanted and generally has been a lackey of the US.
History lives, the second world war isn't over and it looks as if the US got what they wanted, a UK totally complicit and dependent on them. That's why the euro was sabotaged.

So getting back to more parties as you asked before I started my rant! I don't think it would help, they tried in the 80's - didn't work. Re-branding is the name of the game now, new Labour, caring Conservatives. Democracy isn't the best or most efficient form of government imo but we're stuck with it.
I think the new Iceland party may find it hard to get to power because the main parties have all the right contacts.