Royal charter plan for post-Leveson media regulation raises concerns over impact on freedom of press

The UK's political leaders this week reached broad agreement over a new system to regulate the press, but many lawyers remain unconvinced of the merits of the proposed reforms.

The agreement, announced on Monday (18 March) after lengthy talks that ran into to the early hours of the morning, saw the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats approve a draft royal charter in the wake of last year's Leveson Inquiry into media standards.

Key provisions within the charter include handing the regulator power to direct the nature, extent and placement of corrections and apologies, while publishers that do not sign up to the new regulatory system could be subject to exemplary damages.

Given that the charter can only be amended with a two-thirds majority in Parliament, some lawyers have expressed concerns that the effective statutory underpinning could have a chilling effect on press freedom and could be open to legal challenge.

The proposals also risk being boycotted by some editors unhappy with the resolution.

Taylor Wessing head of media and entertainment Niri Shan (pictured) said: "No matter how you dress it up, the press regulation deal amounts to statutory underpinning. When you get down to the basics, the royal charter might not be a statute passed by Parliament, but it is still liable to change if a two-thirds majority of Parliament can amend it. It's semantics – under the new draft royal charter the politicians still ultimately control the press."

One legal director at a major media organisation added: "Inevitably, there will be concerns about a chilling effect on the press. It feels like some things are being rushed through, in respect of which individuals and groups would become part of the watchdog, and on the issue of exemplary damages and when they would apply.

"There's so much to be worked through. It feels like, in the rush to do something, some of the details might be fudged. From the industry's point of view, it could create a confusing picture of where it leaves us on the ability to report on socially important matters."

Concerns were also raised about the charter's potential impact on internet publishers such as bloggers, given the potentially ambiguous reference to websites containing "news-related material".

Media law consultant David Banks, the co-author of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists, said: "The deal is a fudge and so imprecisely worded; although, with the statutory underpinning, it still places MPs as the ringmasters. 

"We have got this interesting situation in regards to bloggers and websites. There is a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of the political establishment about what the internet is and they simply don't understand the already vast panoply of material out there. I don't think it is going to work. 

"The newspapers have got a lot of political considerations to think about and they will make those along commercial lines. My advice for bloggers is to stay well out of it."

However, others have broadly backed the proposals, while emphasising the importance of appointing the right board representatives for the regulator.

Berwin Leighton Paisner commercial litigation partner Graham Shear said: "Following Leveson, the primary concern was that we would end up back in the dark days of toothless self-regulation, but I'm actually quite satisfied with the agreement. It strikes a good balance between sensible ground rules and press democracy. 

"The next stage is identifying the people needed to negotiate the parameters of the regulator – it wouldn't necessarily be right to parachute in people from the Press Complaints Commission."

Press regulation: key reforms

• Royal charter can be amended only with a majority of at least two-thirds in Parliament
• Regulator should have power to direct the nature, extent and placement of corrections and apologies
• Regulator should have power to impose fines of up to £1m