News

10-week Government Consultation: SIGN UP to help us give press victims a voice

11/11/2016

The Government recently and suddenly announced a 10-week consultation on the implementation of two key Leveson reforms: the introduction of a new measure that would guarantee access to justice for victims of illegal libel and press intrusion ("section 40”) and Part Two of the Leveson Inquiry, designed to look at who knew what about phone hacking and when, and explore the scale of police and press corruption more broadly.We believe this was a cynical attempt to avoid a possible defeat in Parliament as MPs and Peers were both pushed to a vote on whether to introduce section 40 for new phone-hacking victims after Peers had voted already for inclusion of the measure into the Investigatory Powers Bill.Just a few years ago, many victims of press abuse who had been thrust into the media spotlight after tragic circumstances, gave evidence over 18 months to Lord Leveson reliving the traumas they suffered. The Government's announcement of a further consultation from the Secretary of State is a disgraceful attempt to force them to go through that all over again.This “consultation” is no more than an attempt by the Government to re-run the Leveson Inquiry, but with a conflicted Government Minister replacing an independent Judge. That is the last way decisions over press regulation should be taken.Whilst we don't believe the consultation itself has any legitimacy, we are calling on you the public to help us give a victims of press abuse a voice by responding.

If you are not already on our mailing list, please join below to find out how you can help. We will be in touch very soon. Thank you.

*Please note - you can unsubscribe at any time and your data is never given to third parties.

[mc4wp_form id="4766"]

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

A year and two days: the story of one complaint to IPSO
Guest blog: Chris Goodall's complaint about fifteen errors in a Daily Mail article took IPSO a year and two days to decide. Here he publishes the full timeline — more than 80 emails, hundreds of hours of work, and one correction.
9/22/26
News
SLAPPs and the press: why the Anti-SLAPP Bill is the wrong answer
The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale would apply to any claim touching a matter of public interest, however meritorious and however properly brought. Hacked Off sets out why it would harm victims of press abuse, and why section 40 was the better answer.
9/21/26
News
Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News