The Police and the Press – Leveson

Leveson

By David Rosen, Solicitor-Advocate, Partner and head of Litigation at Darlingtons Solicitors. Visiting associate Professor of Law, Brunel Law School.

I read with eager anticipation, the ‘Executive Summary’ published by The Right Honourable Lord Justice Leveson, on 29th November 2012, following the #Leveson Inquiry.

It is a good read, which goes to the nub of relationships primarily between the Police with the Press, and Politicians with the Press.

 Leveson, LJ concluded that both the Press and Politicians were too close to the Police.

‘…with freedom of speech, comes responsibilities to the public interest: To respect the truth, to obey the Law, and to uphold the rights and liberties of individuals’.

The Press are an integral part of our culture. What they investigate and report upon ought to ‘add diversity of perspective’, to educate, inform, and at times to entertain the public.

The objective of the Inquiry was twofold:

1. To expose what has been going on;

2. To make recommendations moving forward.

 Considerations of the Press and their relationship with the Police, is contained at paragraphs 77 to 101 of the Executive Summary. I commend that irrespective or not as to whether you are a member of the Police force, or a member of the public, that you read it.

First and foremost, Leveson, LJ concludes (para 78), that:

 ’I am satisfied that I have seen no basis for challenging at any stage the integrity of the Police, or that of senior Police Officers concerned…what is equally clear is that a series of poor decisions, poorly executed, all come together to contribute to the perception that I have recognised’.

At paragraph 85, Leveson LJ perceptively and insightfully draws upon Peelian principles of Policing that the Police are for the Public, and the Public are for the Police. It is essential that both the Police and the Public remember that this relationship above all else, is fundamental to our democratic Society. That relationship necessarily requires that:

1. Policing must be with the consent of the Public;

2. The Public must be kept aware of policing concerns and must engage in the debate;

 Leveson LJ, recognised and acknowledged that the Press has a vital role therefore to play in holding the Police to account, acting as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the public.

 ’There needs to be a constructive tension and absolutely not a self-serving cosiness’.

 Lord Justice Leveson asks at paragraph 86: Did the relationship come too close?

There is a need clearly for guidelines and distance. There are many occasions where good work is done together between the Police and the Press. What is clear, is that exposure is limited to a certain ‘few’, and that is not healthy. At times, there have to be embargoes on investigations to protect and serve the public, but on the whole, there needs to be clarity, and openness.

Considerations were given as to gifts, hospitality, and entertainment between gentlemen of the Press and the Police. Lord Justice Leveson concluded that he found no evidence of corruption per se, but perhaps this point is the subject of a different and ongoing operation which has yet to draw conclusions.

At paragraph 96, Lord Justice Leveson stated:

 ’The issue is about perception, more than integrity’.

During the Inquiry, Chief Constable Port, referred to the ‘blush test’. That was a good test in itself. For those who are lost by these words, it means this:

 One should not offer or receive entertainment, gifts or hospitality which either party would be embarrassed to disclose to colleagues, clients, or regulators.

I think that this test applies good common-sense and logic to an otherwise grey area, where there are no useful guidelines. Police are, and need to be seen as being people of honesty and integrity. If not, we are doomed to a future of insecurity, instability and corruption.

I welcome ACPO’s guidance notes on engaging with the Press in the future, although sensibly, it may just say 2 words: ‘blush test’. If too regulated, our Police will lose their effectiveness. That, however, needs to be weighed carefully against the public perception of accountability to the public, through sensible and responsible reporting.

Leveson