Critically evaluate the conduct and recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry

The Leveson Inquiry
Author’s Name:
Institute:
The inquiry by Justice Leveson on press ethics commenced in 2011. This was after the scandal on phone-hacking. The inquiry was focused on press ethics, culture, and practices. It also focused on the success and failure of the existing regulatory framework and policy. The inquiry was not only limited to newspapers but rather included many other media organizations. A report on the first part of Leveson’s the inquiry has been published and the second part will commence after the completion of criminal proceedings that are currently ongoing (Leveson, 2012).
In the report, it is acknowledged that there has been a failure on Press Complaints Commission. Lord Leveson recommends that a press law should be introduced. This would be the first since the 17th century. He also proposes an independent body to be established in place of the failed Press Complaints Commission. The establishment and operations of this body should be free from governmental interference. This will renew the faith of the public in that newspapers will be under check by independent regulators. This way, there would be no repetition of incidences such as the phone-hacking scandal.
Leveson points out that Ofcom should monitor the revamped Press Complaints Commission. This will help renew its independence. He also criticizes the fact that some politicians have close relationships with press owners. This raises concerns in cases where operations from such relationships do not take into account the public interest.

In as much as it is not within the mandate of Lord Leveson to introduce new standards code, he makes a number of recommendations on standards code. The recommendations made in the report are warranted. Codes should be established in a transparent process that incorporates the element of public participation. They should also not compromise the public’s ability to enjoy their rights.
Lord Leveson further recommends that a regulatory system should have a legal underpinning. This way, the government would be legally bound to defend the press freedom. The legislation model proposed by Leveson provides for a privacy tribunal as a way of addressing complaints in place of courts. This is desirable because it is of low cost in comparison to the costly litigation processes. The Metropolitan police are also criticized for failure to reopen investigations on phone hacking. It can be argued that the police were let off too lightly by Leveson. He claims that though poor decisions were made, the police conducted their investigations with integrity (Leveson, 2012).
The report also provides a number of recommendations for the proposed regulatory body. This includes requiring the newspaper publishers to have a compliance report published on their pages. On the protection of public interests, it is recommended that the new regulatory body should hold newspaper publishers accountable for the materials published. A complaints platform for the public should also be introduced by the new regulatory body.
Information access has also been addressed in the report. There is a call for transparency especially when it comes to acknowledging the sources of materials such as images, scientific studies and poll results. There are recommendations about data protection on the report as well. There is a recommendation that the exemption under section 32 of the Data Protection Act is supposed to be narrowed so that it applies to personal data processing. There is also a recommendation that a public interest test should be carried out before the processing of personal data. The data controller should ensure that the publication is done based of public interest (Leveson, 2012).
References
Leveson, L. J. B. H. L. (2012). An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press: Executive Summary and Recommendations [Leveson Report] (Vol. 779). The Stationery Office.