How is the press regulated?

In November 2012, Lord Justice (now Sir Brian) Leveson, published his report on the “culture, practices and ethics of the press”. Lord Leveson’s inquiry was set up by David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, in response to the “phone hacking” scandal of 2002 to 2011. The current system of press regulation is a response to the Leveson report.

A royal charter on press regulation (PDF) was granted on 30 October 2013. This incorporated key recommendations from the Leveson report, allowing for one or more independent self-regulatory bodies for the press to be established. Any such body would be recognised and overseen by a Press Recognition Panel. Publishers who joined a recognised regulatory body might expect to receive more favourable treatment if action was taken against them in the courts. The Press Recognition Panel (PRP) launched in November 2014.

There are now two press regulators. Most publications have signed up to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which has not applied for recognition.

A small number of publications have joined Impress. This body is ‘Leveson-compliant’ and was recognised by the PRP in October 2016 as an ‘approved’ regulator.

Other publications, for example the Guardian, have not joined either regulator and have their own internal readers’ ombudsmen.

The government has said that the UK’s self-regulatory system is “important for press freedom” and that it “therefore does not intervene in or oversee the work of press regulators in preventing press intrusion”.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was intended to incentivise publishers to become members of a regulator recognised by the PRP by providing that costs in litigation could be awarded against them unless they joined a recognised regulator and made use of any arbitration scheme provided by the regulator. Section 40 would also have made it easier for the public to challenge alleged illegality by news publishers who chose not to subscribe to an approved regulator because it could mean publishers having to pay both sides’ legal costs, whether they won or lost a case.

Much of the press industry opposed section 40, claiming that it was an attempt “to force titles into state-backed regulation” and was “incompatible with the principles of free speech”.

However, Hacked Off, an organisation set up after the phone-hacking revelations, supported section 40, arguing that it was “critical to upholding the rights of the public” and protecting them from press abuse.

The 2019 Conservative Party Manifesto claimed that section 40 sought to “coerce the press” and would be repealed to “support free speech” (PDF). The background briefing notes (PDF) to the 2022 Queen’s Speech said that a Media Bill would repeal section 40. This commitment was included in a draft Media Bill of March 2023.

Section 50 of the Media Act 2024 has repealed section 40 of the 2013 act.