The central findings, from the watchdog's powers and the police response to phone hacking, to the possibility of a UK 'first amendment' and the media's treatment of footballers' wives

Recommendations

• New watchdog independent of MPs and newspapers, with statutory underpinning

An independent self-regulatory body underpinned by statute. It should be free of "any influence from industry and government". Leveson says: "It should be governed by an independent board. The chair and the members of the board must be appointed in a genuinely open, transparent and independent way."

• The possibility of a first amendment-style law

Leveson says the legislation should allow for an independent regulator to be organised by the industry, but it "should also place an explicit duty on the government to uphold and protect the freedom of the press".

• Powers, remedies and sanctions of the new watchdog

Fines of 1% of turnover, with a maximum of £1m. The watchdog should have "sufficient powers to carry out investigations both into suspected serious or systemic breaches of the code". Had the Press Complaints Commission had this power it could have gone into the News of the World newsroom to investigate allegations of widespread phone hacking.

• Libel resolution unit

The new watchdog should have an arbitration process in relation to civil legal claims against subscribers. The process should be fair, quick and inexpensive. "Frivolous or vexatious claims" could be struck out at an early stage.

• Membership

This is not legally obligatory, which means the likes of Richard Desmond, owner of the Express, could continue to opt out of the regulatory body. But Leveson recommends that if they do not join the independent regulator, they should be policed by the broadcast watchdog, Ofcom.

Findings

• Phone hacking

Leveson makes no findings on any individual but says he is not convinced hacking was confined to one or two people. "The evidence drives me to conclude that this was far more than a covert, secret activity, known to nobody save one or two practitioners of the 'dark arts'."

• Newspapers have recklessly pursued sensational stories

"There has been a recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, almost irrespective of the harm the stories may cause and the rights of those who would be affected." The damage to people like the Dowlers, the McCanns and Elle Macpherson's former adviser has been "devastating".

• Families of actors and footballers also have rights to privacy

Families of famous people have had some of their lives destroyed by the relentless pursuit of the press. Leveson says he found "ample evidence" that parts of the press decided actors, footballers, writers and pop stars were "fair game, public property with little if any entitlement to any sort of private life or respect for dignity". He adds: "Their families, including their children, are pursued and important personal moments are destroyed."

• Condemns covert surveillance

Leveson finds that there has been "a willingness to deploy covert surveillance, blagging and deception in circumstances where it is extremely difficult to see any public interest justification". He notes the News of the World was even prepared to put a surveillance team on two lawyers, Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris, acting for phone-hacking victims.

• Failure of compliance and governance at the News of the World

Few would subscribe to the view of Paul McMullan, the former feature writer who told the inquiry that "privacy is for paedos", says Leveson, but he says the paper's "casual attitude to privacy and the lip service it paid to consent demonstrated a far more general loss of direction".

• Complainants not taken seriously enough

Leveson finds there is "a cultural tendency within parts of the press vigorously to resist or dismiss complainants almost as a matter of course". He says some papers are defensive, and even when an apology is agreed they get their own back by resorting to "high-volume, extremely personal attacks on those who challenge them".

The Dowlers

The Guardian's revelation that messages had been deleted from 13-year-old Milly Dowler's phone when it was hacked turned out to be an error that "was significant enough". But had it been couched in "more cautious terms or less certain terms may not have been capable of criticism at all". Leveson says the fact remains that the News of the World hacked the phone of a dead schoolgirl. "The revelation of that story rightly shocked the public conscience in a way that other stories of phone hacking may not have, but it also gave momentum to growing calls for light to be shed on an unethical and unlawful practice of which there were literally thousand of victims. In that context, whether or not NotW journalists had caused the 'false hope' moment is almost irrelevant."

The McCanns

Leveson devotes almost 12 pages to the McCann family. Some of the reporting of the disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz in Portugal in May 2007 was, Leveson says, "outrageous". A number of newspapers were "guilty of gross libels", with the Daily Star singled out for its headline claiming the McCanns sold their child: "Maddie sold by hard up McCanns".

Press lobbying

On the press lobbying for self-regulation, Leveson is withering, saying he does not find "the self-interested lobbying of the press to be an appropriate matter for press regulation". He says he has some sympathy for politicians who are lobbied. "Not only are the press powerful lobbyists in their own interests, but they wield a powerful megaphone with considerable influence."

The police

• There is a perception that senior Met officers were "too close" to News International, which was "entirely understandable" given police actions and decision-making. "Poor decisions, poorly executed, all came together to contribute to the perception."

• Hospitality police received from media, lavish restaurant meals and champagne, did not enhance the Met's reputation.

• The Met's decision not to reopen the criminal inquiry into hacking was "incredibly swift" and resulted in a "defensive mindset".

• Some police decisions from 2006-10 were "insufficiently thought through … wrong and unduly defensive (and not merely with the benefit of hindsight)".

• The Met's hacking review, led by John Yates, failed in its strategy to inform potential victims of hacking, including Lord Prescott.

• Given his friendship with a senior News International executive, Yates should have recused himself from the inquiry.

• No evidence that decisions to limit the hacking inquiry were due to undue influence or corruption. Integrity of police not challenged.

• It should be mandatory for chief police officers to record all their contact with the media, and for that record to be available publicly for transparency and audit purposes.

• Chief officers should also be the subject of regular independent scrutiny by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, including through unannounced inspections.