A statutory backstop for press regulation could damage freedom of speech, the Leveson Inquiry has heard.

Jonathan Heawood, director of English PEN, a charity supporting free expression, told the inquiry co-regulation was a veiled form of statutory regulation, and said he had never seen a model incorporating the best of self-regulation and state intervention.

He said: "One would rather live in a too noisy society than in a quiet, over-regulated society".

He added: “You may encounter the Desmond problem where some publishers choose not to opt in. I think ultimately that’s preferable and to subscribe and be a member of that code becomes a badge of honour. I haven’t yet seen a model which charts a magical course between those two routes”.

Heawood was questioned with John Kampfner, chief executive of Index on Censorship, who said there is no such thing as a perfect system of regulation.

Kampfner said he saw “no need” for statutory regulation of the media, and championed a robust system encouraging ethical editorial practice.

He said a strong independent framework of self-regulation continuing the complaint and mediation work of the PCC, but with a strong standards arm, would benefit the press. He added the PCC code “needs tweaking” and serving editors should not be able to sit on the board.

He added: “I would simply argue that there have been many last chance saloons before but with the right robust and considerable changes…[we could have] a strong system of self-regulation”.

Heawood said the Guardian “have blazed a trail” in appointing an internal ombudsman, readers’ editor Chris Elliot, who gave evidence to the inquiry last week, to resolve complaints quickly and effectively.