Sir Brian Leveson, speaking out publicly about his Report’s recommendations for the first time, has issued a damning rebuttal to false claims from the Government and the press about the reforms he proposed on press standards.

In a letter, addressed to senior Parliamentarian Baroness Hollins, Sir Brian begins by reminding the Government and the press that one of his central recommendations – to protect both publishers and ordinary members of the public from extortionate court costs – was inspired by evidence to his inquiry from a newspaper paper. That proposal, adopted into law and now known as “section 40”, has been systematically misrepresented by powerfully press groups, who have successfully lobbied the government to remove it.

In response to inaccurate press and Government claims that his recommended framework for regulation constituted “state regulation”, Sir Brian states:

“I simply do not understand how this assertion can be made…the Royal Charter was specifically designed to ensure independence – independence of the press and independence of politicians.”

Commenting on press objections that section 40 would oblige newspapers to pay the cost of all court cases whether they win or lose, he says,

“Neither my recommendation (nor, as I read it, s. 40) ‘forces’ news publications to pay costs when they win”.

And in response to the assertion that section 40 would imperil small publishers, he has said,

“This claim asserts the opposite of the effect of my recommendation.”

On the claim that the Leveson recommendations were out of date, he added,

“Allegations of libel, invasions of privacy, misuse of personal data remain equally as relevant today and are as pressing as ever.”

The letter can now be read in full on the website of the independent Press Recognition Panel here.

Commenting, Hacked Off CEO Nathan J Sparkes said,

“Sir Brian Leveson’s detailed and impartial remarks undermine deliberate attempts by Government and newspapers to mislead voters and Parliament. His recommended framework for press self-regulation was and remains a fundamentally moderate proposal that would for the first time introduce some element of independent accountability to the national press. There was never a threat to the financial interests of the press from his recommendations; neither was there any prospect of political interference in his proposed framework. The press did not fear for their finances or their independence; they feared for their ability to abuse and bully ordinary people with impunity. Sir Brian’s letter does not address the politics, only the facts. And the fact is, newspapers have lied about the impact of section 40, and a Government desperate for press support has been complicit in those lies. That a former Inquiry Chair felt obliged to correct the false characterisations of Her Majesty’s Government ought to shame our politicians, as well as the newspapers which led this campaign of malicious disinformation.”