In 2017 Parliament implemented the (fictional) ‘Powers of the Press Act 2017’ which introduced a new system of press regulation. The new Act requires oversight of the press to be carried out by a statutory Office of Media Standards (OMS) which can delegate the handling of disputes to the Press Complaints Bureau. The Bureau has the status of a private company. The Act also states that there may be an appeal from the Bureau to the Office of Media Standards but only if permission for the appeal is granted by the Bureau. In addition, the statute provides that decisions of the OMS ‘may not be challenged in the courts on any grounds whatsoever’.
The Bureau issues guidelines for the handling of disputes relating to press standards. These specify that, in order to make the process as flexible and speedy as possible, there will be no oral hearings and disputes will be decided solely on the basis of written evidence. According to the guidelines, permission to appeal to the OMS will only be granted where an issue of general public importance is raised by the dispute; and whether such an issue is raised is ‘at the sole discretion’ of the Bureau.
Max has complained to the Bureau that a newspaper has infringed his privacy rights. The Bureau refuses to permit an oral hearing and does not grant leave to appeal. It gives brief reasons for its decision, which state that ‘considerable latitude must be given to the press in their balancing of their right to freedom of expression with the right to privacy. We will not interfere with such balancing unless the outcome is grossly unreasonable.’
Advise Max.
