The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPs
Was a criroinel or associate paid? Fdends, nsighbours and family
members fall within this group. A picture of e criminal bought from
her boyfriend has been held to breach the Code,
To justify payment, the publication would need to be able to satisfy
the PCC on each of these counts, If it felt confident of doing so it
could proceed, even if no public interest justifiea~ion existed.
n 2006, a magazine article headlined Why / Slept With My Own
Son was the first to fail both these tests. A mother convicted of
unla,Jdul sex with her teenage son had described the offence in the
article and said the only th ng she regretted was being caught. That
was evidence of exploiting a particular crime end justifying it.
She and her son were paid by an agency, WhiCh was paid by the
magazine. The PCC ruled that whi e the mother had a right to
express her view, there was no conceivable public interest in her
being paid (Mof!at MP ~ Chat magaz,,ne R~r~,orf 73 2005)
But when a Sunday newspaper pad £460 to a petty cdm nai who
claimed -- falsely -- to have served community service at the same
time as the then Lord Chief Justice conducted undercover research
into non-custod a sentences, it was cleared of a breach.
The Commission ruled that, while some people might object to
e exploit a particular criroe?
gtori~ crime in cjeneral?
payment or Offer:
Ve payroent witl elicit roaterial which
public interest?
in any Other Way?
"Jd ahead of publication:
}erged genuinely i~ the public interest? f
celled --even if payment has been made.
payment to someone with a criminal record, he was not exploiting a
particular crime, nor did he glorify crime tn general. Expressing
honest views about experiences on a community service scheme
was not sufficient to engage the terms of the Code, Had it done so,
it would be unduly restrictive of stories about prison life from the
perspective of a criminal. ~Th~me~ va~e~, Pr¢~batio8 Ar~’~ v Mall or~
Sun~a " R~n~r~ 74 2007,
The public inte~st defence remains in Clause 16ii for relevant
cases -- and can be used with Clause 161 or alone -- but has been
revised to cover both the act of payment to criminals and the
subsequent publication.
This means a newspaper which pays a crmina, in the genuine
and reasonable belief that it would be the only way to elicit
information of public interest, is covered. However if, once the deal
is done no such material of public interest emerges, nothing should
be published as a result.
The rule was tightened in June 2004 after a Scottish paper
(~/cfnnes v £)~i~y ~ecu, V R~p9 ~ L~2 20~3) paid a convicted cnmmaf
for an interview, expecting him to reveal vital, and undisclosed,
details of the crime. But he did not-- and the paper published the
interview, regardless. It was not a breach then. it would be now. it is
a further safeguard against fishing expeditions, which ere not
allowed under the Code and which now -- Jf fruitless -- Could also
prove expensive,
,~ Mct~! ~,,~ v C~z m~g~z lie (Roped 73 2006}
~TRames /a~!ev Pr-obaSo~ Area v ~#att on Sunday ~Rebert 7,1
2[}(}7’~
c!nne~ Daily Set;ore R~ ~o,I 62 200~
[ f the Code of Practice lies at the qeert of self-regulation of the
press, then serving the public interest lies at the heart of the Code,
and providing ts moral base. Yet the puo ic interest is mpossibie to
define. So the Code does not attempt to do so. Instead, it provides
e flavour of what it regards as the public interest -- a non-exhaustive
and of the very best of journalism, eynthesisieg its democratic rote list that atterr ~te to reflect the values of the society the British press
serves:
Detection or exposure of crime or senous ~mprepnety;
,
rem~ybeexcep~r~etot~e~ ueeemi ~ d*’~ ,l!y, , ~ Uoholdinofreedomofaxuression.
~etre~e
d
to be tit ~Se pUS~ic #~ere~. The Code also makes clearthat if the information is already available
"he public interest #ncJudas, bu~ is ~e~ cen~in~ to: in the public domain -- or likely to be so -- that too is a factor.
De ore~sirtgc;rfmeerderto~ priers. The list coutd go on, but if deliberately does not. The spirit of the
Pretecti~ ~u~ ~ee~b and Sa~
Code set out in the Preamble, requires that these areas should not
~) Preventing ~e ~e~ ~a#ng m#a~d bye~ a~-~o~ ~s~Cement be interpreted too widely; the Code does not work, for example, on
f an in t ~r o~a~tio~,
the basis that the public interest is essentially whatever the public is
"h~re ~ ~ p i~e~in em ~f ~e i~e~ } interested in. But nor should the list be interpreted too narrowly, so
issues anse
as to d sceu ge or prevent estigati
. .. . ; - ] pus Icn
~ut~atistic ac~fity u~dert~kem wi~ a ~eW t~ p~#Ge~iett~ w~Utd ~e t~
~UbH¢ it~ t. " .... ; it was to protect such investigative journalism that the Code’s test
ubtic d~i~, er ~ t e .....
.... .. : .
,~ ~ ~n cht~ under ~6~ editors must demonStta~e at] ....
¯ . :, ~ .. .... :.
tiet~pub#i¢ it~ ~ ~er-~de ff~e t~rmatty paraacoun
t
mterest was served. But th s d d not spaclfice ly allow tor pubhcat en
ormvestlgativeactwltythatgenulnelyappeared to be ’ mthep ublc
interest even where none actually emerged,
~st ~ t~e ~dtd.
So the Code committee introduced the test that editors would
The panel
colour code
~What the
Code says
i~ "~;~ Key
q’~Jestions
editors need
to ask
themselves
when Code
~ Bnefings
on seeciflc
areas where
~he Code
applies
MOD100036614
39