Lawyers question timing of PCC shutdown as Leveson rumbles on
City media lawyers have questioned the timing of the news that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is to be shut down amid the ongoing Leveson inquiry into UK press standards. The wind-down of the PCC, which has come under intense fire in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal, had been widely predicted, although the yesterday's (8 March) announcement has provoked some surprise among media lawyers.
March 09, 2012 at 09:59 AM
3 minute read
City media lawyers have questioned the timing of the news that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is to be shut down amid the ongoing Leveson inquiry into UK press standards.
The wind-down of the PCC, which has come under intense fire in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal, had been widely predicted, although the yesterday's (8 March) announcement has provoked some surprise among media lawyers.
The news that the PCC will move into a "transitional phase" has been questioned by some given that it comes ahead of the findings of the ongoing Leveson inquiry, which are due to be published in October.
Bird & Bird media partner Phil Sherrell said: "No-one will be surprised at the demise of the PCC, but the timing may concern the Leveson Inquiry. Creating a successor to the PCC, even on a temporary basis, while the inquiry is still in progress looks like an attempt to pre-empt the inquiry's findings and avoid the need for further reform."
The PCC, which was first established in 1991, was set up to enable non-statutory self-regulation of the press. However, the stream of revelations of misdemeanours exposed by the phone-hacking scandal have prompted some to call for a move to statutory regulation.
Last October, Beachcroft financial services chairman Lord David Hunt (pictured), the former Conservative cabinet minister, was named as the new chairman of the PCC, succeeding Baroness Peta Buscombe. His appointment saw him set out his intention to review press regulation and work out a structure for the future, saying that there was "a need and a real appetite for change".
Among the many suggestions for regulatory reform include the proposal that a new complaints commission should have a legally binding libel arbitration arm.
Berwin Leighton Paisner partner Ian de Freitas commented: "If the press wish to avoid statutory regulation then they will need to come up with something credible and sufficiently independent very quickly. Sanctions will have to be meaningful and have teeth to prevent the sort of behaviour that has tarnished large sections of the press."
CMS Cameron McKenna media partner Susan Barty added: "The PCC's cards have been numbered since the start of Leveson, if not before. The only surprise is really that it has taken this long. In my experience it was never particularly effective, save in rather limited circumstances, and it always had the reputation of being dominated by press cronies. I never found it particularly effective as a regulator – one of the most important issues being the lack of any effective sanction for transgressions."
An interim body will now be put in place to deal with press complaints while a new set-up is established.
In yesterday's statement announcing the closure, the PCC said: "Following a detailed and lengthy discussion, there was unanimous agreement in principle to the proposal that the PCC should now move into a transitional phase, transferring its assets, liabilities and staff to a new regulatory body designed along the lines proposed by the Reform Committee and endorsed by the industry on 15 December 2011, subject to a number of points that would need to be discussed further."
"The Commission agreed that there should be ongoing dialogue with Lord Justice Leveson's team throughout the proposed transitional phase."
- For more, see: PCC RIP: what next? – the future for press regulation
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAshurst Beijing Chief Representative Leaves for New York Boutique Sterlington
Baker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Axiom-Ince: SFO Charges Five, Including Former Head, Following Investigation
3 minute readSDT Upholds SLAPP Claim Against Osborne Clarke Partner Advising Nadhim Zahawi
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250