An inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press: executive summary and recommendations [Leveson report]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
1. For the seventh time in less than 70 years, a report has been commissioned by the Government which has dealt with
concerns about the press. It was sparked by public revulsion about a single action – the hacking of the mobile phone of
a murdered teenager. From that beginning, the scope of the Inquiry was expanded to cover the culture, practices and
ethics of the press in its relations with the public, with the police, with politicians and, as to the police and
politicians, the conduct of each. It carries with it authority provided personally by the Prime Minister. It requires me
to consider the extent to which there was a failure to act on previous warnings as to the conduct of the press, the way
in which the press has been regulated (if it has) and, in any event, how regulation should work in the future.
2. The inclusion of the relationship between the press and the police came about because of public concern that the police
had become too close to the press in general, and News International in particular, with the result that the
investigation of phone hacking had not been conducted with the rigour that it deserved and calls for re-consideration of
the allegations were ignored. Inclusion of the press and politicians followed not only because of the political
consensus from the Government and Opposition parties that politicians had been too close to the press but also because
of concerns about the bid by News Corporation for the remaining shares in BSkyB plc. The operation of the wider
regulatory framework in relation to data protection, together with consideration of issues of plurality of ownership and
its effect on competition came to be included as wider consideration was given to the all embracing nature of the Terms
of Reference for Part 1.
3. It took three months to start receiving the evidence (although the process continued for a year). In nearly nine months
of oral hearings, 337 witnesses gave evidence in person and the statements of nearly 300 others (individuals or groups)
were read into the evidence without them being called. Almost all of the evidence is and has been available to watch and
daily transcripts have also been published online. Statements and exhibits can be examined on the Inquiry website: it
has become the most public and the most concentrated look at the press that this country has seen.
4. The task set by the Prime Minister is that I should make recommendations, based firmly on the evidence that I have heard
and read, about the way in which things should be done differently in the future. This has meant reaching broad
conclusions as to the narrative of events sufficient to explain and justify my recommendations, all the while being
mindful of an ever expanding police investigation which has already led to over 90 arrests. Every single one of those
arrested is presumed and remains innocent unless and until the contrary is
proved in court. It has thus been a core principle of the Inquiry that the investigation and any prosecution should not
be prejudiced by its work: that has inevitably led to serious restrictions around the evidence that could be called or
investigated in areas that are obviously key to the Terms of Reference.
5. By appointing a judge to conduct an Inquiry of this nature, the intention was that it would proceed along judicial
lines. In other words, the Inquiry would be a process of obtaining evidence and reaching conclusions based on objective
appraisal of evidence, independence and political neutrality. Furthermore, for over 40 years as a barrister and a judge,
I have watched the press in action, day after day, in the courts in which I have practised. I have seen how the press
have assisted the investigation of crime and seen the way that the public have been informed about the operation of the
justice system. I know how vital the press is – all of it – as the guardian of the interests of the public, as a
critical witness to events, as the standard bearer for those who have no one else to speak up for them. Nothing in the
evidence that I have heard or read has changed that. The press, operating properly and in the public interest is one of
the true safeguards of our democracy. As Thomas Jefferson put it:
“Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.”
6. As a result of this principle which operates as one of the cornerstones of our democracy, the press is given significant
and special rights in this country which I recognise and have freely supported both as barrister and judge. With these
rights, however, come responsibilities to the public interest: to respect the truth, to obey the law and to uphold the
rights and liberties of individuals. In short, to honour the very principles proclaimed and articulated by the industry
itself (and to a large degree reflected in the Editors’ Code of Practice).
7. The evidence placed before the Inquiry has demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that there have been far too many occasions
over the last decade and more (itself said to have been better than previous decades) when these responsibilities, on
which the public so heavily rely, have simply been ignored. There have been too many times when, chasing the story,
parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist. This has caused real hardship
and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people whose rights and liberties have been disdained. This
is not just the famous but ordinary members of the public, caught up in events (many of them, truly tragic) far larger
than they could cope with but made much, much worse by press behaviour that, at times, can only be described as
outrageous.
8. That is not to conclude that the British press is somehow so devoid of merit that press freedom, hard won over 300 years
ago, should be jeopardised or that the press should be delivered into the arms of the state. Although the Inquiry has
been reported as having that aim, or likely to have that result, even to suggest it is grossly to misrepresent what has
been happening over the last 16 months. I remain (as I started) firmly of the belief that the British press – all of it
– serves the country very well for the vast majority of the time. There are truly countless examples of great
journalism, great investigations and great campaigns. The exposure of thalidomide, the campaign to bring the killers of
Stephen Lawrence to justice,
the exposure of abuse in the operation of MPs expenses are but the best known in a long list. The press describes world
and local events, illuminates political issues and politics generally, holds power to account, challenges authority,
investigates and provides a forum for debate.
9. It is not necessary or appropriate for the press always to be pursuing serious stories for it to be working in the
public interest. Some of its most important functions are to inform, educate and entertain and, when doing so, to be
irreverent, unruly and opinionated. It adds a diversity of perspective. It explains complex concepts that matter in
today’s world in language that can be understood by everyone. In no particular order, it covers sports, entertainment,
fashion, culture, personal finance, property, TV and radio listings and many other topics. It provides help lines and
advice; it supports its readers in a wide variety of ways. It provides diversion in the form of crosswords, games, and
cartoons. In short, it is a very important part of our national culture.
10. But that does not mean that it is beyond challenge. Neither does it mean that the price of press freedom should be paid
by those who suffer, unfairly and egregiously, at the hands of the press and have no sufficient mechanism for obtaining
redress. There is no organised profession, trade or industry in which the serious failings of the few are overlooked
because of the good done by the many. Indeed, the press would be the very first to expose such practices, to challenge
and campaign in support of those whose legitimate rights and interests are being ignored and who are left with no real
recourse. That is, indeed, the function of the press: to hold those with power to account. It is, in fact, what the
Guardian did in relation to the News of the World, and what first ITV and then Panorama did in relation to the BBC.
11. The purpose of this Inquiry has been two fold. First, it has been to expose precisely what has been happening by
publicly testing the evidence of those who are able to speak about different aspects of the Terms of Reference: the
public has been able to see and read what has been said and can make up its own mind. Second, it is to make
recommendations for change. As to that, there is no argument but that changes do need to be made. For example, it is
almost universally accepted that the body presently charged with the responsibility of dealing with complaints against
the press is neither a regulator nor fit for purpose to fulfil that responsibility.
12. Although the contrary is often asserted, not a single witness has proposed that the Government or that Parliament should
be able to step in to prevent the publication of anything whatsoever. Not a single witness has proposed that the
Government or Parliament should themselves be involved in the regulation of the press. I have not contemplated and do
not make any such proposal.
13. The Report has been written to build up the evidence in relation to the public, the police, data protection and the
politicians before going on to consider the law and regulation. In the light of my findings, it is possible to deal with
the press and the public, the police and politicians entirely separately. Accordingly, this summary deals first with
background, and then turns to the press and the public followed by the Press Complaints Commission and regulation of the
press (including references to the law). It then deals with the police (both as regards Operation Caryatid and the
relationship between the press and the police) before going on to the press and data protection. The main section ends
with press and politicians and the issue of plurality.