Public Interest Record Keeping
A new regulatory body should consider being explicit that where a public interest justification is to be relied upon, a record should be available of the factors weighing against and in favour of publication, along with a record of the reasons for the conclusion reached.
How was this assessed?
Response
Accepted in Part
Response
Accepted in PartThe Prime Minister stated on 29 November 2012 that he accepted "the principles that Lord Justice Leveson has laid out" for independent self-regulation, including "an independent board, a standards code, an arbitration service and the power to demand up-front, prominent apologies and impose million-pound fines." However, he rejected statutory underpinning, expressing "serious concerns and misgivings" about crossing "the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land." The Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press was granted on 30 October 2013, establishing the Press Recognition Panel as the recognition body. IPSO was established in September 2014 but has not sought Royal Charter recognition. IMPRESS was recognised by the PRP in October 2016. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/david-cameron-statement-in-response-to-the-leveson-inquiry-report
Published Evidence
Published assessments of implementation progress from inspectorates, select committees, official progress reports, and other sources. Check the source type badge to see whether each assessment is independent or government self-reported.
There is no consistent requirement for publishers to maintain records of public interest deliberations. While the Editors' Code refers to public interest, it does not require the record-keeping Leveson recommended.
View detailed findings
Public interest record-keeping is not required by IPSO's regulatory framework.