Our Latest News

The Press Recognition Panel is looking for two new members for our Board.

What we do

Our job includes deciding whether regulators set up by the press and news publishers, and which voluntarily seek recognition, meet and then continue to meet the requirements set out in the Royal Charter, helping to secure a free press which acts in accordance with the lessons learned through the Leveson Inquiry. It will also allow news publishers to obtain the wider legal benefits of self-regulation by an approved regulator.

The Role

This is an exciting and important role, acting independently in the public interest and under close external scrutiny, as part of the framework put in place following the Leveson Inquiry to ensure proper press regulation.

As a team, we have created and overseen an entirely new and freestanding organisation able to discharge the functions given to us by the Royal Charter. We have recognised IMPRESS and we continue to oversee it. We have also overseen an increase in standards across the press landscape, in some areas.

However, there is still more work to be done to ensure that the public is protected from harm in the way that was intended following the Leveson Inquiry.

Independence

Our Board members are appointed by a process which is unique in its independence from Government, Parliament and other influences. We have a freedom from outside pressure not seen before or since in a public body. We act, and must be seen to act, with the utmost independence, including from Government, Parliament, the media and other potentially partisan interests.

Diversity

It is vital that the Board reflects the diversity of the whole community, including from groups or backgrounds which tend to be under-represented on bodies like this. The Board has proactively integrated this commitment into its operation and recruitment processes at every stage. We welcome applications to enhance the organisation’s diversity to better reflect the society that we serve.

You can find more information about the role and person specification here.  We look forward to receiving your application.

Press Recognition Panel’s (PRP) annual state of recognition report shows public protection from press harm is non-existent eleven years on from the Leveson Inquiry.

The Press Recognition Panel’s (PRP) annual report demonstrates that a lack of independent and meaningful press regulation in the UK persists, more than a decade on from the conclusion of the high-profile Leveson Inquiry, leaving the British public as unprotected as ever from potential press harms. 

From 31 October 2023 to 15 January 2024, the PRP conducted a call for information that invited views from a range of individuals, stakeholders and people in relevant professions. 

In the Parliamentary debate surrounding the media bill, the plight of individuals suffering due to press harms has been ignored as the current government races to repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act. This is an important piece of legislation which was designed as part of the Recognition System post-Leveson, – a system designed to take politics out of press regulation. The failure to commence Section 40 since it was enacted in 2013 has undermined this objective. Should Section 40 be repealed, it will undermine the Recognition System itself and take us one step further towards the failure of this model of press self-regulation. 

Our report includes examples which demonstrate the significant human cost that can be generated by the actions of the press on vulnerable people in difficult circumstances.  

In our Call for Information this year we received a personal account from a member of the public who spoke to us confidentially about their experience with the press following the disappearance of a family member: 

“We went to the police, we went to the newspapers — no one really wanted to help us apart from the local newspapers. The others wanted to charge us for taking out a missing persons ad. When it came out that they had been killed, the media jumped all over us. A lot of the time we were finding out things in the papers, we didn’t know if they were true or made-up. Wherever we went, even when we were with the police, they hounded us, they were camped out on our door-step. There was no respect. 

We asked them to stop but they didn’t until we confronted them with how much they were upsetting the children then they finally left us alone. 

We had to sit next to them in court and listen to them discussing how they were going to report the case — some journalists from the BBC and Channel 5 supported us but the others were really cold — no empathy talking about what they were going to say. One magazine wanted to interview us but refused when we said we wanted to be able to agree the headline. 

We didn’t know we could complain to anyone. It was such a difficult time, it was only years later that we looked back and realise how bad it was. Especially when someone else disappeared and its on the front page of every national newspaper — it felt as if they were deciding who was worth looking for or not.” 

Hacked Off, in their response to our Call for Information, highlighted a series of other incidents of intrusion and other press abuses exposing members of the public to harm in the last year: 

  • “The family of Matthew Lavin, who complained after a newspaper reported on the man’s death after he died by suicide. The reporting appeared to glamorise the location of the suicide, gave excessive information about his injuries and cause of death, and referred to the deceased’s street level address. IPSO rejected the complaint. 
  • The family of Susan Hart, who complained after The Sun reported that Ms Hart had died while on holiday in Greece. Her death had not been confirmed at the time of publication, at which point a search for her was underway. The report of her death in a national newspaper, therefore, caused considerable distress. Content from the family posted to social media was also taken and republished by The Sun without consent. When a member of the family called The Sun to seek a correction, the newspaper initially failed to do so. Eventually, The Sun agreed to publish a brief note on the article stating that Ms Hart had not been found deceased on the stated date.
  • A lady complained after a newspaper named her daughter as the victim of a rape, in a piece headlined, “Scots drug dealer raped unconscious woman after he injected her with heroin”. The woman had since died by suicide. The complainant, her mother, said that this reporting intruded on her grief, and that she feared for her daughter’s child, who might one day read the article and learn about the tragic circumstances of their mother’s death. The article also included pictures taken from social media, without consent, from the victim’s funeral. IPSO rejected the complaint.
  • The family of Steven Carrie complained after a newspaper report wrongly described him as a father, and was – in the family’s opinion – exploitative of their efforts to raise awareness of the importance of defibrillators. The newspaper offered to print a brief correction. Although the family did not consider this to be satisfactory, IPSO closed the complaint and did not require any further remedial action.”

 

As well as exploring the evidence which underlines the urgent need for meaningful and independent press regulation in the UK, the report makes three overarching recommendations: 

  1. The UK Parliament should not repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Instead, it should either commence the provision or put in place alternative mechanisms to protect freedom of speech and the public by holding the whole of the press to account under an independent system of self-regulation.
  2. The Government should take steps to remove legal standing for press standards that are developed by the industry and for the industry rather than holding them to account. 
  3. Ofcom should include in their statutory codes of practice for online platforms implementing safety duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 that the definition of a ‘Recognised News Publisher’ means a news publisher which is a member of an Approved Regulator operating within the Recognition System. 

 

Kathryn Cearns OBE, Chair of the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) says:   

“The public has been abandoned. A lack of action over the course of many years to fully implement the recommendations made during the Leveson Inquiry has been compounded by the current government’s move to rush through a repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act.  

“A repeal of Section 40 will be devastating for the public in the UK where harm by the press is still inflicted far too often on ordinary members of the public. The public could lose its only viable route – were it properly commenced – to challenging the UK press and news publishers without incurring huge costs. In addition, it will denigrate freedom of speech in the UK.” 

“We urge Peers in the House of Lords to stop this part of the media bill in its tracks before we lose the only pathway to independent and meaningful press regulation that exists.” 

Misleading claims made in UK Parliament about the efficacy and independence of the Independent Press Standards Organisation as government rush to repeal Section 40 of Crime and Courts Act

The Press Recognition Panel’s report launched today provides factual analysis demonstrating the lack of independent and meaningful press regulation in the UK persists, over ten years since the conclusion of the high-profile Leveson Inquiry, leaving the British public as unprotected as ever from potential press harms.

In debates surrounding the Media Bill, the government has stated on a number of occasions that the existence of The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) as the regulator of large sections of the UK newsprint press has removed the need for the measures to ensure independent press regulation that Parliament voted for following the Leveson enquiry and report1.

And yet, a comprehensive review of available data demonstrates that IPSO is not a fully operating regulator of the UK press. The report outlines how:

    • In the five years 2018 to 2022, even after excluding third party complaints and clearly out of scope complaints IPSO investigated 3.82% and upheld 0.56% of the remaining complaints it received
    • Like its predecessor the PCC (Press complaints commission), IPSO has never issued a fine against a publication or launched a standards investigation or imposed significant sanctions on any publishers even in those cases where the public interest may seem to require it.
    • IPSO’s last published expenditure is no larger than the PCC’s when inflation is taken into account, likely perpetuating the inequality of arms between an individual complainant (who relies heavily on support from the IPSO team) and a large publication with a legal team.
    • Despite IPSO having a larger volume of complaints than its predecessor the PCC, the number of staff working in the complaints team at IPSO (seven) is no higher than it was under the PCC.

 

Kathryn Cearns OBE, Chair of the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) says:

“This report provides clear evidence that certain Parliamentarians have made unfounded and incorrect statements about the UK’s largest print press complaints body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, as part of a misleading campaign to quickly repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.”

“A repeal of Section 40 will be devastating for the public in the UK where harm by the press is still inflicted far too often on ordinary members of the public. The public could lose its only viable route – were it properly commenced – to challenging the UK press and news publishers without incurring huge costs. In addition, it will denigrate freedom of speech in the UK.”

“The aim of Section 40 is to protect the public from harmful press practises and encourage news publishers to sign-up to an approved regulator – so that we finally have meaningful and independent regulation of the press in the UK. However, it also protects freedom of speech by preventing wealthy individuals and organisations trying to stifle investigative journalism by misusing the courts to bury journalists in legal costs.”

A Review of the UK’s Independent Press Standards Organisation’s Complaints Process and Related Issues

Our Latest Publications

Annual Report and Financial Statements For the year ended 31 March 2023

Presented to Parliament pursuant to Article 12.4 of the Royal Charter on Self Regulation of the Press

The Royal Charter

The Royal Charter ensures that the PRP remains wholly independent of any other body or influence.


The Charter lists 29 criteria that regulators have to meet in order to be recognised. The criteria were designed to secure press freedom and protect the public interest.

FAQS

The Press Recognition Panel (PRP) is an independent body set up by Royal Charter to oversee regulation of the press and other news publishers. The role of the PRP is to “recognise” regulators who apply to us as meeting the 29 criteria (numbered 1 to 23) in the Charter. If we conclude that a regulator meets the criteria, then it is known as an “approved regulator”.

The PRP ensures that, among other things, approved regulators are independent of the publishers they regulate, are funded properly to do their job, are open to all publishers, and provide the public with proper opportunities to raise concerns about the conduct of the regulator’s members.

The PRP must also carry out reviews to make sure approved regulators continue to meet the Charter requirements and the PRP must withdraw recognition if they don’t.

In addition, the PRP must report to Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the public on how the recognition system is working and on the impact of the PRP’s work. We will also inform the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The PRP was created as a result of the Leveson Inquiry into press standards, which followed widespread concern about alleged unlawful activities carried out by some sections of the press, such as phone hacking.

The Royal Charter is the mechanism by which the PRP was created. It was sealed on 30 October 2013.

Schedule 3 of the Charter lists 29 criteria that regulators have to meet in order to be recognised. The criteria were designed to secure press freedom and protect the public interest.

The Charter can only be amended by a two thirds majority of each of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament, and with the unanimous agreement of the PRP Board.

The PRP came into existence as a legal entity on 3 November 2014. 

No, the PRP is not a regulator. The PRP has no control over the press and other news publishers and cannot tell any press organisation, publisher or regulator what to do. The PRP’s role is to recognise, review and report on regulators, to ensure they meet, and continue to meet, the 29 Charter criteria. Where a regulator no longer meets those criteria, the PRP Board can withdraw recognition.  

PRP Board members are free to act without outside influence having been appointed for a period of five years. During that period each of them can only be removed by the unanimous agreement of the other Board members. The Royal Charter itself can only be amended by a two thirds majority of each of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament, and with the unanimous agreement of the Board itself.

No. The PRP plays a part in ensuring the freedom of the press while protecting the public interest. The PRP’s role is to ensure that regulators of the UK press and other news publishers are independent, properly funded, and able to protect the public.

Get In Touch

The Press Recognition Panel (PRP) is keen to hear from and meet as many people as possible, including members of the public, academics, journalists, media owners, publishers, regulators, voluntary organisations and others.

General Enquiries

Reach us at contact@pressrecognitionpanel.org.uk and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Postal Enquiries

Mappin House, 4 Winsley Street, London, W1W 8HF

Follow us