On Tuesday 7 July the High Court handed down judgment dismissing the privacy claims by seven individuals against Mail newspapers. The corporate press has used this as an opportunity to revive their attacks on Hacked Off and its supporters.  There is, of course, nothing new about this campaign of disinformation and deliberate falsehood which the press has levelled at us throughout the 15 years of our existence. But it is important that we set the record straight.  

So here are the facts:

·        Hacked Off was not “behind” the cases brought against the Mail.

·        Hacked Off did not fund the cases or “bankroll” the claimants.  

·        The claimants’ researcher, Graham Johnson, was not and has never been employed by Hacked Off.

·        Hacked Off is not discussed, much less criticised, in the Court’s judgment.  

Hacked Off does not support and has never campaigned for Government or state control of the press.  We argue for independent and accountable press regulation in accordance with the careful and balanced recommendations of a judge-led public inquiry.  The only press freedom we threaten is the freedom to distort and abuse.

Hacked Off was a spectator to the litigation, like the rest of the public.  Naturally, we were on the side of those who sought to expose press wrongdoing, and credit the courage of the claimants and their legal teams in bringing their cases to court.  

The claims were based on the indisputable fact that, over a period of years, the Mail newspapers published many articles containing private information without any“ public interest” justification.  These articles speculated on the paternity of children and disclosed private medical information as well as information about matters such as mental health crises. Deeply personal, intrusive matters.  It was difficult to see how this information could have been obtained without breaking the law, without “unlawful information gathering”.

The Court case did not involve a general scrutiny of the Mail’s investigative practices. The Claimants complained about 57 published articles and had to prove that the information contained specifically in those articles was obtained unlawfully.

Although the Mail paid over £3 million to private investigators who we know used unlawful means to obtain information over this period, the judge ruled that this was not sufficient to establish that the specific articles put before the court were the product of unlawful activity. Yes, the Claimants failed to prove their case; but the Mail was not exonerated. 

The evidence that unlawful behaviour took place remains, and the need for the second part of the Leveson Inquiry to investigate this evidence is as strong as ever.  And these claims did not even touch on the most salient point of all: however, it was obtained, personal and private medical information, or information about the paternity of children should never have been published. 

Contrary to the self-interested arguments of the corporate press, the judgment does not demonstrate that effective and independent press regulation is unnecessary.  On the contrary, it provides a powerful argument in favour. A court action, as the judge emphasised, can only deal with legal wrongs in specific cases, not abusive or discriminatory behaviour or the publication of misinformation.  These are matters fora regulator.

Yet the Mail, like all other national newspapers, remains outside any independent form of regulation. They are still controlling their own ineffectual complaints handler. 

Hacked Off has campaigned for the completion of the Leveson Inquiry and the implementation of its recommendations in full.  These were carefully balanced to ensure that the press was free of political interference but would be independently held accountable in the public interest.  The Mail judgment demonstrates, once again, that these measures are urgently needed.

‍