Media lawyer and author Jonathan Coad recently complained to IPSO about a Telegraph article entitled “Hacked Off Hugh Grant pushes Andy Burnham to curb free speech”.

Telegraph readers were told that Hacked Off “has demanded state regulation of Fleet Street” for 15 years and suggested that Hugh Grant might be “on the cusp of a historic triumph over his tabloid tormentors in the form of state control of Britain’s free press”.

As Hacked Off and Hugh Grant have never demanded “state regulation” or “state control” of the press, this article appeared to be in flagrant breach of clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice, containing as it does “inaccurate information”.

Despite his healthy scepticism in IPSO’s ability to adjudicate fairly, Mr Coad nonetheless saw an opportunity to put the complaints-handler to the test: would it accept the obvious inaccuracies in the piece, or would it defend the newspaper – and how far would it go to do so?

A lot was at stake for IPSO, as The Telegraph isn’t just another of its press paymasters. The Telegraph Media Group’s Executive Director, Lord Black, plays a crucial role in the formulation of IPSO’s rules through his position on the Regulatory Funding Company. Any hint of fair and even-handed consideration would no doubt leave IPSO in trouble with the paper.

IPSO’s response to Mr Coad’s complaint was all too predictable, informing him in a remarkable email that the complaint did “not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code”.

We set out below some extracts from that email along with our comments:

IPSO:

You said it was inaccurate for the article to report that: “Hacked Off has demanded state regulation of Fleet Street”; Hugh Grant wanted “triumph […] in the form of state control of Britain’s free press”; and that Impress is “recognised by the Government”. We noted that what different individuals consider amounts to state regulation, or indeed independent regulation, can differ based on their own views and position.

These statements are clearly inaccurate. Hacked Off and Hugh Grant are longstanding supporters of independent regulation, without state or government interference, and the recognition system under which Impress qualifies has no government involvement whatsoever. Whether the state controls a regulator is not a matter for “different views”: either the regulation is by a state body, or it is not. There is a simple test: does any arm of the state have access to mechanisms which would affect the operation of the regulator? The answer, in the case of the Leveson model of independent regulation, is that it does not.

IPSO’s Trumpian view of reality – that it may be whatever “different individuals consider” it to be – is a disturbing sentiment coming from a body which purports to regulate the media and separate fact from fiction.

IPSO:

Where Hacked Off and Mr Grant endorse regulators being approved by a body set up by a Royal Charter – a legal instrument granted by the Sovereign on the advice of the Privy Council – a model which also had government support, it was not inaccurate for the newspaper to characterise this model as a form of “state regulation” or “state control”, or to characterise a body which is set up by Royal Charter as one which is “recognised by the government”.

It is absurd to argue that any organisation merely approved by an organisation which was established (and not controlled) under a Royal Charter is “government-controlled”. Over 900 organisations have been set up by Royal Charter; the vast majority of them entirely independent of the government. In fact, the Leveson model is particularly popular with outlets known to be critical of the state and the Government – it attracts those committed to free speech and investigative journalism, partly on account of its absolute separation from the state.

IPSO:

You said it was inaccurate to report that Impress is “underpinned” by a Royal Charter, and that the term you would have preferred was “recognised under the terms of a Royal Charter”. We did not consider that the difference between these two terms was material where it was agreed that Impress has been recognised by a body set up by a Royal Charter. Again, we did not identify sufficient grounds to investigate a possible breach of Clause 1 on this point.

The Royal Charter has no “underpinning” function. It establishes the independent body which audits regulators; it has no role in the regulator’s activities.

IPSO:

You said the article was inaccurate to report that “the press fought against any form of state involvement” as the press had proposed a Royal Charter. Again, what different individuals consider amounts to “state involvement” can differ, but where there was a clear history of major publishers opposing models which they considered included an element of state involvement, we did not identify sufficient grounds to investigate a possible breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Just one paragraph ago IPSO argued, without evidence, that the presence of a Royal Charter (no matter its content) represented “state control” of the press. But when it was pointed out that the press had previously put forward their own rival version of the Charter, IPSO does an about-face and argues that a Royal Charter does not represent support for “state involvement” in press regulation.

The truth is that the press objected to the Leveson Royal Charter not because it was a Charter, but because it would have required them to be regulated independently; the alternative Charter they put forward heavily watered down Leveson’s recommendations and would have allowed them to go on controlling their own ineffective complaints body.

IPSO struggled to take a consistent line in defence of The Telegraph because there isn’t one. It was an error-packed piece. Mr Coad gave IPSO the opportunity to stand up for itself but, as expected, it went through absurd contortions to support The Telegraph.

Mr Coad summarised the position like this:

“IPSO itself proves the need for it to be replaced by a fully independent and Leveson-compliant press regulator”.