Opinion: Leveson – Do we need a new Court of Appeal?

It looks like we are going to get a new Code of Practice and a system of voluntary self-regulation by the press. But is that all we need? Shami Chakrabati wrote an instructive objection to the concept of “legal underpinning” and has subsequently said she “would rather leave the question of whether the tests are met to the courts and not to involve a quango . . .” (such as Ofcom). As one of the six advisors to the commission and an expert in Human Rights Law, she is in a good position to comment. What is needed are not changes in the law regarding press freedom but changes in the practice of law enforcement.

As the tragedy of Jacintha Saldanha has all too dramatically shown, it is thoughtless irresponsibility as much as investigative or sensationalist journalism that needs to be changed. Victims need the protection of the law from abuses of the law by the press and media. The problem is that recourse to the law is too often denied to ordinary members of the public without the knowledge or the funds to proceed with a legal case and even if they do the timeframe and process can be even more damaging than the original intrusion.

We need to change the way the law operates. In the UK, we have Family Courts with special rules and procedures for handling the sensitive cases and issues surrounding family law. I suggest there needs to be a new Media Court of Appeal. The present court procedures are too slow and in many cases the courts lack the necessary powers to encourage and enforce compliance.

The new Court must have the ability to act quickly. It should have the power to issue injunctions of restraint as well as the power to order a police enquiry into any specific case where there is a grave cause for concern that a criminal act may have been committed by a journalist, photographer, Editor or member of the public. The Court should have power to subpoena witnesses and even exceptional powers, such as for example, the right to have evidence heard in secret or give immunity to identification or prosecution of individuals in order to protect media sources. We do after all wish to encourage whistle blowers and others to bring matters of legitimate public interest into the public domain.

This has to be a balanced system that works in the public interest and does not hinder the press in exposing unlawful conduct by others. It should be a powerful incentive for media organisations to sign up to voluntary regulation by being able to impose punitive fines on those who do not.

The new Court should also provide protection in cases of abuse through broadcasting and the electronic media. It should have the power to order that the authors of content published electronically be identified by their service providers.

In any action the appellant would have to demonstrate, as did Lord McAlpine, that they were the subject of an unwarranted and unjustifiable abuse of their freedom or damage to their reputation. This is not to be a means of protecting celebrities or others with secrets to hide.

It should not only be the Lord McAlpines of this world that can afford to take action against his libellous abusers on Twitter etc. Conditional fee agreements between solicitors and claimants would ensure that solicitors are willing to act for a legitimate victim.

A new voluntary scheme of regulation will only be good enough for a limited period of time. As Leveson has pointed out, the pressures for standards to slip are ever present. We need to improve the speed and effectiveness of law enforcement too because the Courts today do not provide adequate protection.

Parliament is responsible for the law and its operation and it should move to establish a Media Court of Appeal. This is not so much an under-pinning as an over-sight of a robust free press operating within the existing laws of the land under its own voluntary code of self regulation.

* Mike Biden is an Executive ordinary member in Winchester. A lifelong supporter of the Liberals, he has become an activist since his retirement. His career saw him in senior corporate positions in Sales & Marketing and as a Chief Executive.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • “In the UK, we have Family Courts with special rules and procedures for handling the sensitive cases and issues surrounding family law. ”

    Oh boy. Wait till John Hemming sees that!

    I don’t see what powers your giving this new court that the existing courts don’t already have. Or why this new court will be able to act quicker than the existing ones. Certainly where issues of media intrusion are concerned the courts can act quickly when it comes to injunctions and the like

  • Alex Matthews 11th Dec '12 - 10:10am

    Well the idea that having a new court, similar to the one used for family cases or the one used for construction cases does sound nice in practice, but we should not forget that these two courts deal with specific closed cases and that is why they can be quick and effective in many cases, and often those involve want to time as little time in court as they can and wish to end the case in a mutually beneficial manner. However, defamation cases can involve anyone defined as a legal identity and so I think we could end up with the same problem the COJ has, it will quickly become flooded with cases of people wanting their 5 minutes of moan, wanting to crush their foes or superfluous cases. Also we should not forget that many involved in family cases/construction cases are quite balanced in terms of power, but in these cases you have one or two people going head to head with massive corp’s, which is quite a daunting task. I think the advantage of independent regulators is that people feel they are more approachable than the courts.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJames Baillie 29th Jun - 12:52am
    Eddie - whether resignations from the party happen is not in the gift of the radical wing, it's dependent on the leadership. If Vince wants...
  • User AvatarClive Lindley 29th Jun - 12:27am
    I think we are fortunate to have Vince prepared to do the job. Reading the above posts, I think that some of our colleagues and...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 29th Jun - 12:11am
    Is the leadership election not being cancelled? Isn't the "coronation" going ahead? There seems to be a lot of panic in the radical pro EU...
  • User AvatarSteve Way 29th Jun - 12:02am
    A joint body is the only equitable solution as no single party to an agreement should get to unanimously decide whether the terms of that...
  • User AvatarJoebourke 28th Jun - 11:40pm
    Dave Orbison, What the Lib Dems believe is succinctly set out in this link https://www.markpack.org.uk/150076/what-liberal-democrats-stand-for-poster/
  • User AvatarAndy Hinton 28th Jun - 11:36pm
    "Remember, you can only nominate one candidate." A sentence with what appears right now to be an unfortunate double meaning! I wouldn't sign Vince's nomination...
Sat 1st Jul 2017
Mon 3rd Jul 2017
Wed 12th Jul 2017