The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

i ¸
For Distribution to CPs
Was a criminal or associate paid? Friends, neighbours and family
members fall within this group. A picture of a criminal bought from
her boyfriend has been held to breech 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 justification existed.
in 2006, a magazine article headlined Why I Slept With My Own
payment to someone with a criminal record, he was not exploiting e
particular crime, nor did he glorify crime in general. Exprassmg
honest views about experiences on 8 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 orison life from the
perspective of a criminal, 7;Sam~;~ V~d~ev Pr~1::~r; A~’e~ v Ma~[ cJ
Sunda,¢ R~;#o ~ r4 2007~
Son was the first to fail both these tests. A mother convicted of
unlawful sex with her teenage son had described the offence in the The public interest defenca remains in Clause 16ii for relevant
article and said the only thing she regretted was being caught. That cases -- and can be used with Clause 16i or alone -- but has been
was evidence of exploiting a particular crime and justifying it. revised to cover both the act of payment to criminals and the
She and her son were paid by an agency, which was paid by the subsequent publication.
magazine. The PCC ruled that while the mother had a right to This means a newspaper which pays s criminal, in the genuine
express her view, there was no conceivable public interest in her and reasonable belief that it would be the only way to elicit
being paid. (Mo~ MI -~ v Chef m~mzi~e ~c~ 73 >*f;:~; information of public interest, is covered. However ,f, once the deal
But when a Sunday newspaper paid £460 to a petty criminal who is done, no such material of public interest emerges, nothing should
claimed -- falsely -- to have served community service at the same be published as a result.
time as the then Lord Chief Justice conducted undercover research The rule was tightened in June 2004 after a Scottish paper
into non-custodial sentences, it was cleared of a breach. {Mcfnri~ v Dmiy ~ecord: R~port 62 2003} paid a convicted criminal
The Commission ruled that, while some people might object to for an interview, expecting him 1o 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
e further safeguard against fishing expeditions, which ere not
al owed under the Code and which now if fruitless -- could also
prove expensive.
ch
rest? If
nade.
[ the Code of Practice lies at the heart of self-regulation of the
J press, then serving the public interest lies at the heart of the Code,
and of the very best of journalism, synthesising its democratic role
s ]~e!’n@s V~l~ ~ rarebit]on ~t@8 ~Ji g~ ~;.ttTO~ y ~e~ Sfl 74
2007}
and providing its moral base. Yet the public interest is impossible to
define. So the Code does not attempt to do so. instead t provides
a ~evour of what it regards as the public interest-- a non-exhaustive
list that attempts to reflect the 4slues of the society the British press
serves:
Detection or exposure of cdme or serious impropriety;
Protection of public health and safety;
Prevention of the public from beinc misted,
Upholding freedom of expression.
The Code also makes clear that ff the information is alreaoy available
in the public domain -- or likely to be so -- that too is a facto[
The list could go on, but it deliberately does not. The spirit of the
Coda, eat out in the Preamble, requires that these areas should not
be interpreted too widely; the Code does not work, for example, on
The panel
;elour co[}e
~ What the
Code says
Key
eues~ions
editors need
~o as~
the basis that the public interest is essentially whatever the public is mernse~ves
interested in. But nor should the list be interpreted too narrowly, so when Code
ssues arise
as to discourage or prevent investigative journalism or exposure of
senous wrongdoing, for instance. That would itself be against the ~ Briefings
on s~edfic
pu blic i nterest areas where
It was to protect such investigative journalism that the Code’s test
the Code
applies
for invoking the public interest was changed in October 2009,
Previously, editors were required to demenslrale fully haw lhe public
interest was served. But this did net specifically allow for publication
or investigative activity that genuinely appeared to be in the public
interest, even where none actually emerged.
So the Code committee introduced the test that editors would
MOD100036657
82