The Calcutt Report: Review seeks tribunal with powers to curb press: The details of the report

SIR DAVID Calcutt's review of attempts by the press at self-regulation is laced with pessimism. 'Nothing that I have learnt about the press has led me to conclude that the press would now be willing to make, or would in fact make, the changes which would be needed,' he says.

The 63-page report, Review of Press Self-Regulation, says the Press Complaints Commission, set up by the newspaper industry two years ago, has failed to protect the public, is not an effective regulator and is beyond reform. 'I do not doubt that the commission commands the confidence of the industry, but it cannot, in my view, command the confidence of the public,' he says. 'The pressing social need which has to be addressed is protection against unjustifiable infringements by the press.'

It should be replaced by a powerful statutory tribunal, with a range of powers to devise a tougher code, impose fines of up to 1 per cent of any paper's net annual revenue, prevent publication of information contrary to the code, and initiate its own investigations without anyone making a complaint. It would be able to order papers to print apologies.

He judges that the PCC should be abandoned because it was not constituted along the lines set out in his (Sir David's) first report of 1990.

Its members, (9 of 15 are from newspapers) have not been selected by an independent appointments commission; the industry has drawn up a softer code that 'significantly reduced' protection for individuals. Most seriously, the PCC defines what is in the 'public interest' too widely.

He criticises the PCC for failing to establish a 'hotline' to forestall publication and for being unwilling to initiate its own inquiries. He recommends, in addition, that three new criminal offences, first proposed in his 1990 report, should now be created, carrying fines of up to pounds 5,000, but no imprisonment. These are:

Entering or remaining on private property without consent, with intent to obtain personal information with a view to publication;

Placing a surveillance device on private property; using a surveillance device without consent;

Taking a photograph, or recording the voice of an individual who is on private property.

'The offences do not cover every wrong associated with physical intrusion. But they do cover the most blatant forms . . . and would make clear forms of behaviour which were wholly unacceptable,' Sir David says. 'They would catch any intruder . . . for example, a freelance journalist or photographer who offered to sell material to the press.' A defence would be that the action was carried out to prevent, detect or expose crime or seriously anti-social behaviour; prevent the public from being misled; inform the public about a matter affecting the public function of an individual; or the protection of public safety or health.

In addition, an individual should have the right to apply for a High Court injunction to prevent the publication of material gained through methods covered by the three new offences.

In the most significant change from his first report, Sir David also gives his backing to a new tort (civil wrong) of infringement of privacy and says measures adopted by other countries, notably France, might travel well.

'Whilst the review was in progress a court in France awarded damages to the Duchess of York (over topless photographs taken of her) in contravention of their laws protecting privacy. Why not here? '

But he says a tort of privacy infringement would have to cover the whole of the media and 'have to cover a wide range of human and technological activity'. But he adds: 'Before any wide-ranging new tort is introduced here it would be necessary for (it) to receive more detailed consideration than in the last two decades.'

He also wants criminal courts to be given powers to stop the publication of the name and address of any person alleged to have been a victim of crime. He also wants swift action to stop so-called 'jigsaw identification'.

On the issue of bugged phone calls, he says that there are gaps in legislation covering private telephone conversations and points to the near impossibility of controlling scanners which can monitor calls. 'Such gaps provide fertile ground for journalists. The full extent of this matter, however, is one which extends beyond my terms of reference. There appears to be a prima-facie case for strengthening the law,' he says.

'I recommend the Government gives further consideration to the legislation covering interception of telecommunications with a view to identifying all significant gaps and determining whether any further legislation is needed.'

In a final conclusion, Sir David says he expects to be met with claims he is censoring the press. 'Since the name of Robert Maxwell may be on many lips, it will perhaps be as well to remember he was among the most ardent of advocates that the press should be left to regulate itself.

'My recommendations are designed to make a positive contribution to the highest standards of journalism.'