News

Hacked Off respond to PRP discovery that the Panel has been “designated as within the Ministry of Justice boundary”

11/01/2019

Hacked Off

The Chairman of the Press Recognition Panel has written to the Government regarding the Panel’s apparent “designation” within the “boundary” of the Ministry of Justice.

The Press Recognition Panel is an independent body established by Royal Charter. Its role is to “recognise” regulators established by or on behalf of publishers of news-related material, which meet basic and specified standards of independence and effectiveness.

The Panel enjoys absolute protection from Government and political interference through several mechanisms, in order to protect the freedom of the press.

Most of the largest publishers have instead set up IPSO, an industry complaints-handler which does not meet the requirements for “recognition”, and whose rules can only be changed with the agreement of the Regulatory Funding Company (RFC). The RFC consists of 6 press executives, 1 editor, and 1 politician.

Hacked Off’s Director of Policy Nathan Sparkes said,

“The unimpeachable independence of the Press Recognition Panel is one of the distinguishing features of the Leveson model of press regulation, which sets it apart from the industry-controlled complaints-handler IPSO, whose rules must be agreed with a committee of newspaper executives and a working politician.

Putting a politician in the position of vetoing a complaints-handler’s rules, as with IPSO, is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank – an element of political control which is a danger to press freedom, and which the Panel is protected against.

“It would violate the terms of the Royal Charter, itself protected by primary legislation, for the Government to have any oversight of the Panel, through the Ministry of Justice or otherwise.”

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

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