29 August 2002 – With one bound, Jack was free; once again the Press Complaints Commission has wriggled clear of the threat of legislation, persuading the Lord Chancellor to drop his promise to introduce a law forbidding payments to witnesses by newspapers. There should be no surprise. This is what the PCC was born to do, and it does it very well.
The Commission is now required to strengthen its Code of Practice in order to place an absolute ban on paying potential witnesses for their stories in active criminal proceedings, and to insist that payments conditional on conviction are unacceptable in all circumstances.
Interestingly, whatever the PCC comes up with is to be included in the codes of practice of the other media regulators who will be covered by Ofcom, plus the BBC. But wait, these broadcast media (who are rarely known to pay witnesses anyway) will be subject to fines or other disciplinary action if they offend against the codes. But newspapers (where chequebook journalism is rife) will still be liable to no more than the PCC’s gentle slap on the wrist for exactly the same transgressions.
Not only does this seem unfair, but it speaks volumes for the power of the press over government policy. No one elected the PCC (to be fair, no one elected the Lord Chancellor, either) but it is their paymasters, Rupert Murdoch et al, who are calling the shots. Even in such a matter as this, which goes to the heart of ensuring a fair trial and protecting the presumption of innocence, the government has shown itself to be spineless when faced with the possibility of losing newspaper support.
Government spokesmen have made it perfectly clear (a favourite phrase of dubious meaning) that the PCC is “on probation.” If self-regulation fails to work, they say, they will not hesitate to legislate. Well, yes. Unfortunately they have said that before. Would anybody like to buy a battleship?
PressWise is opposed to specific legislation against the media in this field, preferring to see strict policing via the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which, unlike the PCC Code of Practice, would hit offenders in their pockets. Of course, the PCC could always strengthen its powers of self-regulation by imposing such penalties itself. But now that Jack is free once more such a move seems unlikely.
Bill Norris
Associate Director
(Bulletin No 72)