UK\u00a0 The publisher of the Daily Mail (and Mail on Sunday) has claimed that the penalties for newspapers that do not sign up to government-backed press regulation breach the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p>\n
The paper has repeatedly criticised the Human Rights Act, which implements the convention in the UK, but publisher Associated Newspapers is relying on the agreement as part of its argument against statutory regulation.<\/p>\n
The Press Recognition Panel (PRP) is tasked with identifying an independent regulator, and legislation in the 2013 Crime and Courts Act means any newspaper that does not sign up faces significant penalties in libel cases.<\/p>\n
In a submission to the Press Recognition Panel\u2019s annual report published this week, Associated said it had received legal advice that penalties affecting libel cases are incompatible with article 10 which guarantees freedom of expression.<\/p>\n
On part of the act which allows judges to impose exemplary damages on newspapers found to have libelled someone has already been put into place.\u00a0 However, former culture secretary John Whittingdale decided last year to hold off on implementing section 40 of the act which would also force them to pay both sides\u2019 legal costs whether they win or lose. In what was seen as an attempt to reopen the issue of imposing it more widely, the House of Lords recently voted to impose the costs rule on newspapers involved in phone hacking.<\/p>\n
None of the measures have any force until an independent regulator has been recognised by the PRP. The organisation is considering an application by Impress, which has signed up 14 members representing 25 publications, but none of the major newspapers.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have legal advice that sections 34-42 of the CCA 2013, which enforce the royal charter, and which discriminate against and penalise certain groups of news publishers, are in breach of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.\u201d<\/p>\n
The News Media Association, which represents the industry, said it had received similar advice, \u201cThe charter was a political creation, imposed without industry agreement and intended to enforce industry involvement by statutory sanctions that contravene article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.\u201d<\/p>\n
Most major national newspapers, including the Mail titles, have signed up to regulator Ipso, which has said it will not seek regulation or government backing. The Guardian, Financial Times and Independent have not joined any regulator, instead relying on their own procedures for dealing with complaints. All have expressed concerns about implications for free speech of government backed press regulation.<\/p>\n
In its report, the PRP said it found only \u201climited justification\u201d for the concerns about an article 10 breach, but said that parliament \u201cmay wish to consider\u201d whether it could pose a problem. It also said it had written to Whittingdale\u2019s replacement Karen Bradley to ask her whether she would make a decision about imposing the cost rules in section 40.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"