Leveson rulings expected to include 'excoriating' criticism of the press

Leveson rulings expected to include 'excoriating' criticism of the press

Judge's notice to newspapers is understood to be 100 pages long, throwing 'kitchen sink' at industry


Lisa O'Carroll

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 August 2012 00.09 BST



Lord Leveson has sent notices to all newspaper groups. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images


Lord Justice Leveson is expected to launch what is being described as "excoriating" criticism of the press after notices went out to all newspaper groups warning them that he anticipates making rulings on everything from privacy to self-regulation.


It is understood the same generic letter has gone to all the main national newspaper groups, but executives are anxiously awaiting a more damaging Rule 13 notices containing specific criticism of individual titles and witnesses.


Leveson's Rule 13 notice is understood to be around 100 pages long with a five page summary listing the areas Leveson is intending to make critical pronouncements on, according to sources.


These are expected to contain explicit adverse comment and could go to anyone in a newspaper group Leveson feels has failed to uphold standards, as well as individuals from any other sectors who face criticism in the judge's final report. Witnesses during the 197 day inquiry included politicians, police and media regulators.


Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006, obliges Leveson to give those he intends to criticise a right to reply before publication.


Those with sight of the first batch of Rule 13 notices said the appeals court judge has thrown the "kitchen sink" at the newspaper industry. "It is excoriating," said a source.


The executive summary is understood to cover specific areas including self-regulation, invasion of privacy, the issue of prior notification of publication, accuracy and public interest.


The letter is divided into sections with headline assertions such as "self-regulation has failed" backed up with references to the evidence.


Newspaper groups and others are anxiously awaiting the second batch of Rule 13 notices which could be more damaging corporately.


Leveson said during the inquiry that his findings were intended to provide a narrative on which to base recommendations. But he added that if he felt the need to make a "specific criticism of any sort against an individual or title, a separate notice would be provided".


News International is preparing for the worst in the wake of the phone hacking affair, which included the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone, but will be doing its best to deflect criticism of its flagship brand the Sun, hoping that the now defunct News of the World is Leveson's main target.


Leveson said earlier in the inquiry that he will not make findings as to the culture and ethics of individual titles "save, perhaps, in relation to the News of the World", but put newspapers on notice that he may make specific criticisms of individual titles.


The Press Complaints Commission is also expected to be heavily criticised, but it has already accepted its fate and is currently winding down.


Tabloid editors linked to what the inquiry described as "egregious" breaches of the PCC code of practice seem unlikely to escape censure by Leveson.


He has already criticised the Daily Express over coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. During the inquiry he accused the newspaper of writing "complete piffle" and "tittle-tattle" about the McCanns.

The Daily Mirror will also be in his sights in relation to its coverage of Christopher Jefferies, the Bristol landlord questioned by police about the murder of Joanna Yeates, but released without charge and cleared of any involvement. Former editor Richard Wallace apologised to the inquiry for this coverage.



Leveson has said that under the legislation, he has discretion about warning anyone who is "criticised expressly or inferentially in the evidence in order" but said in a ruling during the inquiry that he "cannot include any explicit or significant criticism of a person to whom I have not given such a warning".


It means that those who do not receive a second warning letter can confidently expect to escape censure in his final report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/29/leveson-rulings-excoriating-criticism-press?newsfeed=true

A very interesting and detailed report on the "dark arts" employed by the Times newspaper (I suspect other newspaper do pretty much the same thing).

The Times and NightJack: an anatomy of a failure

The story of how, in a string of managerial and legal lapses, the Times hacked Nightjack and effectively misled the High Court

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/04/times-nightjack-hack-leveson?page=0,0

It has everything: dodgy journalist, dodgy legal manager, dodgy editor, how a victim was forced to change their legal defence and how the High Court was misled by the newspaper. I would suggest anyone interested in the McCann case spend a good few minutes analysing the article.

ShuBob wrote:A very interesting and detailed report on the "dark arts" employed by the Times newspaper (I suspect other newspaper do pretty much the same thing).

The Times and NightJack: an anatomy of a failure

The story of how, in a string of managerial and legal lapses, the Times hacked Nightjack and effectively misled the High Court

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/04/times-nightjack-hack-leveson?page=0,0

It has everything: dodgy journalist, dodgy legal manager, dodgy editor, how a victim was forced to change their legal defence and how the High Court was misled by the newspaper. I would suggest anyone interested in the McCann case spend a good few minutes analysing the article.

Stunning! Very long but fascinating.
quote:
The password incident of 17 May 2009 was now mentioned, and cuttings were included of Foster’s previous hacking activity as a student at Oxford University. (Those cuttings happened to mention the offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, the existence of which was news to Brett.)
unquote.
I take that to mean that the d...... lawyer at The Times no less, was unacquainted with the Computer Misuse Act!

Not so surprising when I once had to reveal to a very expensive solicitor that under British law one is not required to pay an unitemised bill..[b]
But one would have expected more from the Times, however, they do have David Smith (who took 'briefings' from GMc) on the staff.