By Nathan SparkesFollowing the news that the body found by the police is that of the missing person, Nicola Bulley, her family issued a statement.Part of that statement criticised the media, saying,

“It saddens us to think that one day we will have to explain to them that the press and members of the public accused their dad of wrongdoing, misquoted and vilified friends and family. This is absolutely appalling, they have to be held accountable.This cannot happen to another family. We tried last night to take in what we had been told in the day, only to have Sky News and ITV making contact with us directly when we expressly asked for privacy.They again, have taken it upon themselves to run stories about us to sell papers and increase their own profiles. It is shameful they have acted in this way. Leave us alone now.Do the press and other media channels and so called professionals not know when to stop? These are our lives and our children's lives."

Although you may not have known of those criticisms, had you watched the video of the statement on the website of the Daily Mail, the MailOnline, which shamelessly cut out that passage in its coverage.Desperate to deflect criticisms of their own industry, some newspapers have sought to attack the police for not engaging with the media in the way which suits them.The Spectator and other titles have even sought to blame the Leveson Inquiry for causing – they argue – the relationship between press and police to become less co-operative, and effectively, the end of private or unauthorised communications between the police and the media.There is nothing stopping appropriate contact between the police and the pressIn fact, the guidelines governing police engagement with the media (known as Authorised Professional Practice, published by the College of Policing) state that information may be shared with the media where there is a “legitimate” policing purpose in doing so – a position endorsed in the Leveson Report.Some newspapers have argued that the Leveson Inquiry resulted in the end of “off-the-record” briefings between reporters and officers. In fact, all he recommended about such briefings was for greater clarity about what, specifically, could or could not be reported, and that a record should be kept of any such meetings.This recommendation has been largely adopted by the College of Policing, which continues to permit both reportable and non-reportable briefings (provided the rule above – that there is a legitimate policing purpose in sharing the information – is adhered to, as well as rules on keeping records of such meetings).In other words, there is no post-Leveson ban on information being exchanged between officers and reporters. But there is a requirement that information is being shared with a specific reason in mind, and in pursuit of the police’s legitimate objectives.The alternative, which one must presume these newspapers are longing for, is to abandon these intuitive and balanced guidelines.This would result in a return to the days in which the police delivered information by handing out juicy tidbits about an investigation, a suspect, or victim of crime to a favoured reporter in the corner of a shady pub. Not on the basis of legitimate policing reasons, such as the pursuit of justice, balanced against the dignity and privacy of victims of crime (and suspects), but on the basis of what would sell more newspapers.Titles would vie to get the exclusive on the medical, sexual, or otherwise personal history of victims, suspects and anyone else deemed newsworthy.That is not in the interests of the public, and demonstrably damaging to and exploitative of those written about.It is also a practice which breeds corruption between the police and the press.For example, after the Hillsborough disaster, corrupt networks of police officers, reporters and politicians were behind a national campaign to smear the people of Liverpool and protect the interests of the powerful.In another example, it took Alastair, brother of murder victim Daniel Morgan, years to uncover the complex web of relationships between reporters and officers – engaged in specifically in the practice of exchanging information between the press and the police – which were likely behind his brother’s murder.Ten years ago, it was more routine for the police to tell the press the name of a suspect or arrestee, long before they were charged with any offence and without any public interest justification or "policing reason" for doing so. In some cases, innocent one-time suspects like Christopher Jefferies and Rebecca Leighton have won damages for being named in this way.After the hacking scandal broke in July 2011, dozens of public officials were arrested for receiving corrupt payments from journalists and most of them were convicted of breaching the public’s trust in the police or prison service.There are more examples we know of and – given the nature of corruption – likely to be many, many more we don’t.The press’ late, late conversion to the cause of scrutinising the policeIn any case, the claim that “Leveson” has prevented newspapers from properly holding the police to account is extraordinary, coming from an industry which has spent decades forming intimate relationships with the Met and other police forces.The Times and The Sun’s publisher News UK even had ex-police officers on the payroll for many years. One of them so happened to be the officer which investigated phone hacking allegations against The News of the World and found nothing.Years later, it was established that hacking was widespread at the title. That police officer, subsequently employed by News UK, hadn’t seen a thing – despite leaving, he said, “no stone unturned” in his investigation.And he wasn’t the only officer to pass through the revolving doors between the Metropolitan Police Force and the Murdoch press – even a former Commissioner went on to be employed by Murdoch’s publisher News UK.And it was of course News UK reporters which – it is alleged – sought to interfere into the police investigation into the death of Daniel Morgan, by surveilling the lead detective and his family. They are alleged to have done so on behalf of associates with corrupt relationships in the police, who were among the suspects in Daniel’s murder.And after Hillsborough, when the press should have been doing its job of scrutinising the police, it turned out that The Sun and other titles were covering for them: protecting their interests while attacking innocent Liverpool fans.A new-found enthusiasm for the pursuit of justiceAs for the press’ new-found support for the pursuit of justice, which was – apparently – somehow made more difficult by their inability to get their hands on key details of the investigation first, where were they when the Second Part of the Leveson Inquiry was being debated in Parliament?This was an Inquiry designed specifically to uncover the truth about the criminality which had occurred at major newspapers and to bring the culprits to justice. It, too, would have examined allegations of wrongdoing and corruption among the police and politicians.Any organisation committed to the rule of law and seeing justice done would have been fighting for it to go ahead.Yet newspapers did not lead the charge for justice. In fact, they waged a campaign to obstruct it, by intimidating weak-willed and ambitious politicians into dropping it.There are good reporters in the UK who hold the police to account and wish to see justice done.But at an editorial and proprietorial level, the national press have shown their hand. They cannot be trusted to do either of these things effectively, and when they groundlessly blame “Leveson” for their inability to do so, their arguments ring hollow.Governing the relationship between the press and the policeSouth Lancashire police face inquiries, by the authorities who regulate them, into how they handled this investigation, and we await those findings.But the national press, unregulated, with a history of corrupt relationships with the police which remain – to this day – uninvestigated by the promised Leveson Part Two inquiry, appears to be arguing for a Wild West approach to relations between the police and the press.This can only lead to less transparency, and greater corruption between these two powerful institutions.