Ministers have been accused of launching an “unlawful” consultation on the second part of the Leveson inquiry meant to investigate corrupt dealings between the press and police, as well as new legal costs provisions.
Two victims of press intrusion and an investigative website have filed a claim for a judicial review of the decision to consult on two remaining aspects of the Leveson inquiry, set up in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.
Former Crimewatch presenter Jacqui Hames, online news publisher Byline Media, and an anonymous phone-hacking victim have jointly filed the claim against the lawfulness of the consultation exercise, claiming to be “particularly affected by any decision to resile from the promises made”.
The claim against the culture, media and sport department and the Home Office states that the 10-week consultation seeking the public’s views is “misleading and unbalanced in fundamental ways, which render it plainly unfair”.
It argues that the consultation launched by the culture secretary, Karen Bradley, is unlawful because both Leveson part two and the controversial section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 concerning legal costs were previously promised, and because the consultation document itself is biased.
Bradley launched the 10-week consultation exercise in November, arguing that the government needed to decide whether a further inquiry four years after the Leveson inquiry was “still appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest”.
The announcement came after several reports suggested that the government was preparing to shelve both remaining aspects.
Evan Harris, joint executive director of Hacked Off, said: “This legal challenge is no surprise, given the shameless conduct of the government in breaking its promises to victims, intervening to frustrate the will of parliament, and issuing a consultation paper so biased that it could have been written by the Daily Mail or the Sun.”
He said any cancellation of Leveson part two was “even __more outrageous” given its remit to consider corporate governance at News International, then managed by James Murdoch, the current head of 21st Century Fox which is bidding to take full control of Sky.
“Given that Ofcom will need to investigate whether those behind the Sky takeover bid are ‘fit and proper’, cancellation by the government of the second phase of the Leveson inquiry would be even __more outrageous,” he said.
The costs provisions involve the implementation of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which though enacted by parliament, needs to be commenced by the culture secretary. Widely condemned by the newspaper industry, under section 40 there would be a presumption that newspapers outside a recognised self-regulator would pay their own and their opponents’ legal costs, even if they won a court case.
The consultation exercise was welcomed by the Society of Editors. Bob Satchwell, executive director, said at the time: “It would be dangerous to open up local and regional papers, particularly with threats of legal action, to costs which they would have to pay even if they won a case, and which could put them out of business.
“A detailed look by government at the realities of regulation is the best way to ensure that individuals are properly protected without losing valuable watchdogs that expose corruption, wrongdoing and hypocrisy in the public interest.”
The government may end up responding to the claim for judicial review just before the January deadline for the consultation exercise.
A DCMS spokesperson said: “We can confirm that an application has been made to judicially review the consultation. The government is considering its response.”