Analysis: Scottish press facing an added burden despite no wrongdoing

THE Press Complaints Commission’s failure to act on the hacking scandal and its role as a negotiator rather than regulator was its death knell. But a new system underpinned by statutory regulation, as recommended by Lord Leveson, requires closer scrutiny in relation to remedies afforded to the public.

During the evidence of the Scottish editors at the inquiry, Lord Leveson was given a glowing account of Scottish journalism entirely distinct from London-centric practices.

In the report, Leveson made it clear that the proposed regulatory model should not provide an added burden to 
the regional and local press. 
But that is exactly what it does.

The report recommends that the newly constituted board should provide an arbitral process in relation to civil legal claims against those parts of the media that subscribe to being part of the new regulatory system. The process should be fair, quick and inexpensive, inquisitorial and free to use.

Such a recommendation sits contrary to my years of experience of acting for both aggrieved parties and the press. That is because, unlike London, the costs of litigation in Scotland pale into insignificance and the sheer level of litigation is demonstrably smaller.

Even with the proviso of dispensing with frivolous and vexatious claims at an early stage, such a recommendation will add a considerable burden to the beleaguered coffers of the Scottish press. At a time of falling newspaper revenues, that is a very high price to pay for the Scottish press having behaved responsibly.

• Campbell Deane is a partner at media law firm Bannatyne Kirkwood France & Co, and is legal adviser to The Scotsman.