IPSO Must Go

Who, why or what is IPSO? It is an obscure body that regulates a supposedly free press, which was set up as a consequence of the Leveson report. It now wields significant power to muzzle politically incorrect opinions and has recently placed itself above Parliament.

Its origins are in the hacking scandal, and in the subsequent witch hunt against the press, which was led by Sir Keir Starmer when he was Director of Public Prosecutions. Under Operation Elveden, he approved the charging of 29 journalists. Thirteen of whom were acquitted by juries, seven later had the charges dropped, and seven cases had hung juries or were abandoned. Only two were found guilty, but one of these was overturned on appeal, so only one man was convicted, and he had offered a guilty plea anyway.

The then Lord Chief Justice expressed his concern about Operation Elveden, and effectively criticised Starmer for using the misconduct in public office charge. It is a common law offence of great antiquity and ought to be used for the holders of such offices, rather than those who report what they have said or done.

This all took place when the press was unpopular because of the telephone hacking scandal, even though the prosecutions were not related to that issue. Against this background of hostility to the press, the Leveson Report was issued, which proposed regulation of newspapers by the state for the first time since 1695, when the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 finally expired.

The proposal was that a regulator ought to be established by Royal Charter, and that any organisation that did not agree to be regulated would be subject to penal consequences. Libel damages would be increased, and costs would not be recoverable for those who would not bend their knee to Leveson's creation.

This sinister proposal met almost universal support in the Commons and in a vote in 2013, 530 MPs voted to regulate the press, against just 13 who favoured freedom. Along with Richard Drax, I was the teller for the 13 ‘Noes’ and had to watch the 530 pour out of the division lobby while the opposing teller for the ‘Ayes’ counted them.*

I opposed the regulation of newspapers by the state on principle. Freedom of speech is one of the essential pillars of the constitution. It allows the powerful to be held to account, unpopular arguments to be made, and errors of policy making or of judgements in the courts to be challenged. Newspapers that are regulated and approved by the state cannot do this freely or, at least, without an element of self-censorship.