The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) is considering whether to launch an arbitration scheme to settle legal complaints involving defamation or privacy, among other issues.
On Monday, the press regulator is expected to launch a three-month consultation into whether, and how, such a scheme should be run amid increasing criticism of the costs and complexities of seeking redress.
Although waiting to hear from all interested parties, including members of the public, Ipso indicated that the aim of its arbitration scheme would be to make the resolution of complaints “quicker and cheaper”.
Ipso chairman Sir Alan Moses said: “At the core of Ipso’s work is that we will support complainants who feel wronged by the press, and this consultation asks for views on how an arbitration scheme could be part of that provision. I look forward to receiving responses from the public as well as the industry and commentators.”
However, the scheme was instantly condemned by press campaigners as Ipso is not recognised by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP), which was set up in the wake of the Leveson inquiry into press behaviour. Ipso, which is backed by most of the main British newspaper publishers with the exception of the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent, is not seeking recognition from the PRP.
Evan Harris, director of Hacked Off, a group formed after the phone hacking scandal, which believes Ipso is not effectively independent, said: “No complainant with any sense, or a competent lawyer, would have any reason to accept an unrecognised arbitration scheme, especially one set up by a non-independent sham regulator.”
Under the Criminal and Courts Act enacted following the Leveson report, an arbitration scheme backed by a regulator that is sanctioned by the newly formed Press Recognition Panel would be seen as a genuine attempt at settlement and therefore a way of avoiding costly legal battles.
Among the issues covered by the consultation are whether the scheme should be mandatory, which would avoid publishers being able to choose which cases went to arbitration. Respondents are also to be asked how long such arbitrated claims should take and whether a cap should be set on the level of award by the arbitrator.
“Arbitration is not just about reducing costs and delays associated with litigation,” said Moses, “it is about widening access to justice for members of the public and is something I feel very strongly about.”
Ipso indicated it would run a pilot scheme if an arbitration scheme found backing. The system would not replace its regulatory complaints-handling process and “would therefore keep regulatory duties separate from legal claims against the press”.
Consultation ends on 7 September.