Joint committee report: No new privacy law needed

The joint committee set up to assess privacy and injunctions has issued its report today, which insists that no new privacy law should be introduced by parliament and that "each case should be judged on its own merits".

A joint committee of MPs was announced in May 2011 to consider whether improvements to the law were necessary in relation to privacy and injunctions.

In a report published today the committee outlined its recommendations, finding that courts are "striking a better balance in dealing with applications for privacy injunctions" and did not accept claims that "privacy law has been 'judge-made'".

Similarly, the committee said it did not recommend that public interest be given a statutory definition, "as the decision of where the public interest lies in a particular case is a matter of judgment, and is best taken by the courts in privacy cases".

"As an alternative, we expect the reformed media regulator, in conjunction with other regulators, to publish clear guidelines as to what constitutes the public interest, and to update them where necessary".

The committee reported that "enhanced regulation" will be "the most important step towards improving protection of privacy".

"The Press Complaints Commission lacked the power, sanctions or independence to be truly effective. Substantial changes to press regulation are needed to ensure that it encompasses all major news publishers including, in time, major bloggers."

Suggestions from the committee for a way to ensure all publishers join a new regulator includes getting advertisers "to agree to advertise only in publications that are members".

A new regulator should also be able to issue fines, be accessible to complainants at no cost and "play a greater role in arbitrating and mediating privacy disputes", according to the committee.

If the industry fails to establish an independent regulator which commands public confidence, the government should seriously consider establishing some form of statutory oversightJoint committee on privacy and injunctions

Representatives of the body should include those with print media experience, but not those currently working full-time for publishers or with "a demonstrable conflict of interest", the committee adds.

The committee also proposed "a standing commission comprising members of both houses of parliament" which would "scrutinise industry-led press reforms" and report on them.

"If the industry fails to establish an independent regulator which commands public confidence, the government should seriously consider establishing some form of statutory oversight.

"This could involve giving Ofcom or another body overall statutory responsibility for press regulation, the day-to-day running of which it could then devolve to a self-regulatory body."

In reference to online search results, the committee argued that "where an individual has obtained a clear court order that certain material infringes their privacy and so should not be published we do not find it acceptable that he or she should have to return to court repeatedly in order to remove the same material from internet searches".

It added that Google had "acknowledged that it was possible to develop the technology proactively to monitor websites for such material in order that the material does not appear in the results of searches".

As a result the committee said it found "their objections in principle to developing such technology totally unconvincing".

Google and other search engines should take steps to ensure that their websites are not used as vehicles to breach the law and should actively develop and use such technologyJoint committee on privacy and injunctions

"Google and other search engines should take steps to ensure that their websites are not used as vehicles to breach the law and should actively develop and use such technology. We recommend that if legislation is necessary to require them to do so it should be introduced."

Chair of the committee John Whittingdale MP added in a release: "The committee spent some time debating whether additional laws to clarify the right to privacy were necessary or desirable.

"However, we concluded that the existing position, where each case is judged by the courts on an individual basis, is now working reasonably well.
 
"We are concerned that individuals with grievances about invasion of privacy should have an alternative to costly legal action available to them. It is clear that media self-regulation under the PCC did not work.

"We therefore wish to see a stronger self-regulatory system that is seen to be effective and commands the confidence of the public. The PCC’s successor must have teeth; it must be truly independent of the industry; it must incorporate all major news publishers. Parliament should have a central role in scrutinising the process of media reform. If it is judged that the new body is not proving effective, statutory oversight of the media regulator should be seriously considered."

Responding to the committee report, the Hacked Off campaign said it was "alarmed" by proposals such as parliamentary scrutiny of regulatory reform, calling the recommendations "deeply flawed".

"So far as privacy is concerned, Hacked Off notes that this was the core of the committee’s remit and it has firmly endorsed the present legal arrangements, rebuffing the campaign mounted by sections of the press against the Human Rights Act and against the existing injunctions procedures.  

"The muddled findings of the committee reflect the haste of its establishment, at a time when the wrong-headed press campaign against injunctions was at its height, and also the fact that it was overtaken by events last summer, when the evidence of the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone emerged and the Leveson inquiry was established."

The campaign said its feels the Leveson inquiry is "the appropriate forum for determining the future shape of press regulation".

Other key recommendations from the committee:

• "We recommend that super-injunctions and anonymised injunctions that were granted before the Master of the Rolls’ committee’s report and are still inforce are reviewed by the courts to ensure they are still necessary and are compatible with that committee’s conclusions on open justice".
• "We believe the Attorney General should be more willing to exercise his power as Guardian of the Public Interest to bring actions for civil contempt of court in respect of breaches of injunctions online".

The National Union of Journalists said it backs the committee's report and welcomes the finding that "there is no need for a new privacy law".

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).