Controversial plans which could see newspapers landed with opponents’

legal costs even if they win in court are an attempt to “blackmail” the

press into signing up to a “state-sponsored” regulator, Sun

editor-in-chief Tony Gallagher said.

Ministers are consulting on whether to implement the measure, which Gallagher said was “insane” and went against the principles of natural

justice.

But phone-hacking victim and former Crimewatch presenter Jacqui Hames said the public wanted the press to be independently regulated and it would be a betrayal if the full package of reforms introduced after the

Leveson Inquiry was not brought into effect.

Should the UK government intervene to halt extradition proceedings against Julian Assange? Yes

No View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Hames has launched a legal challenge to the Government’s

consultation, which will look at whether to press ahead with

implementing Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

This measure would see newspapers which are not signed up to an

officially-recognised regulator pay their own and the plaintiff’s legal

costs, even if they were successful in court.

The consultation, which ends on 10 January, is also examining whether to

go ahead with the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, which would look

at wrongdoing in the police and press.

Gallagher said yesterday that part two of Leveson would be

“essentially a sideshow” because the media landscape had changed so much since the original inquiry.

“The Government is perfectly at liberty to decide to have it, but I

think it would be a waste of time and money and effort,” he said.

On Section 40, Gallagher said: “Essentially it is an attempt to

blackmail newspapers into joining the government’s regulator, a

state-sponsored regulator, and no self-respecting newspaper worth its

salt wants to be part of a state-sponsored regulator because you are

then on the road to giving MPs power and the whip hand over the press.”

Warning of the impact if the costs provision was implemented, he said:

“A newspaper could report the conduct of a terrible MP, that MP could

then bring a case for libel against a newspaper. He or she could lose

that libel case and yet, because we are not members of the

state-sponsored regulator, we would then be liable for the MP’s costs.

“That offends all principles of natural justice. It’s insane.”

Regulator Impress has received formal approval from the Press

Recognition Panel, which was set up in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry.

It is funded partly by Max Mosley, the former motor racing boss, who was

a victim of a newspaper sting.

But most newspapers have signed up to rival regulator the Independent

Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), the press-funded body which did not

seek official recognition – and would therefore be faced with paying

plaintiffs’ costs under the Section 40 provisions.

Mosley told the Today programme today: “The whole point of section 40 is that it makes possible inexpensive arbitration between a newspaper and an individual.

“Section 40 only applies if [a publisher] doesn’t agree to go to independent arbitration. It is vastly cheaper than going to court. If a newspaper refuses to belong to a recognised regulator then, of course, if it is taken to court it will end out paying both sides. If a newspaper insists on the luxury of a high court hearing they pay both sides. If they go to inexpensive arbitration it costs nobody anything.”

Hames told the BBC Today programme yesterday that the second part of

the Leveson Inquiry was necessary because the original probe could not

examine criminal cases which were yet to come before the courts.

“There were any number of questions which are still waiting to be

asked,” the Hacked Off campaigner said.

She insisted that the Section 40 measures were one part of an overall

package of reforms which came out of the Leveson Inquiry and insisted

that any officially-recognised regulator would remain independent of

government.

Dismissing the concerns of the press, she said: “They do not want to be

independently regulated – and independently is the key word.”

Independent regulation was what the public and victims of press abuse

wanted to see, she added.

If Section 40 was not implemented she said she would be “absolutely

appalled” and she would feel “betrayed” if it did not go ahead.