Your article on Prince Harry’s settlement with News Group Newspapers (The Guardian view on Prince Harry and phone hacking: the ethical issues endure, 22 January) touched on press regulation being “reformed post-Leveson, although not exactly as the report recommended.” This description feels somewhat understated.
During the Leveson inquiry, a proposal was put forward by newspaper representatives that would have let the press maintain control over their own regulatory body. This plan, known as the “Hunt‑Black plan” after Conservative lords Hunt and Black, was rejected by Leveson. He criticized it for letting the press essentially “mark its own homework” and called for an independent regulatory structure, free from the influence of both the state and the press.
So, what was the response from editors of papers like the Mail and Sun? They chose to bypass Leveson’s suggestions and revived the Hunt-Black plan, branding it more attractively as the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso). This was precisely the system that Leveson had deemed inadequate.
To this day, most major national newspapers remain under the umbrella of Ipso, the body created in direct opposition to Leveson’s advice. In its more than ten years, Ipso has yet to conduct a single standards investigation or issue fines to any of its members.
Leveson’s vision lives on through Impress, an independent regulator that has gained the support of several respected investigative publications. However, those publications linked to severe press abuses continue their membership with Ipso. Tackling what the editorial terms the “irresponsibility in vast media organizations” would greatly benefit from more substantial press engagement with Leveson’s intended system.
— Nathan Sparkes, Chief Executive, Hacked Off
For too long, media behemoths and influential figures have slipped through the net of accountability by weaving costly legal defenses. It’s high time the public were made aware of alternative paths. Prince Harry, by exposing misconduct and unethical practices of News Group Newspapers and the Sun, has performed a commendable public service.
It’s revealing, though, that even a royal such as Prince Harry opted for a settlement to avoid the spiraling costs of court procedures. This highlights just how skewed access to justice is when weighed against press intrusions.
Consider Hugh Grant, a high-profile actor forced to settle a similar claim last year for the same reason. If neither film royalty nor real royalty can afford authentic justice through legal means, what chance stands the general public?
A shift in focus is essential. Impress provides an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for all publications under its regulatory model. This offering has been extended to the public and all publishers, providing a critical option for those facing Slapps (strategic litigation against public participation) and unjust claims stifling free speech.
ADR can render legally binding decisions, much like courts, but with significant time and cost savings. If justice is what you seek, there’s a more accessible route. However, major media entities would prefer you remain unaware of this alternative.
— Lexie Kirkconnell-Kawana, Chief Executive, Impress
Do you have thoughts on anything you read in today’s Guardian? Feel free to email us with your letter, and it might be featured in our letters section.
