Leveson Inquiry

It should be made clear that the right to compensation for distress conferred by section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 is not restricted to cases of pecuniary loss, but should include compensation for pure distress.

In conjunction with the repeal of those procedural provisions, consideration should be given to the desirability of including in the Data Protection Act 1998 a provision to the effect that, in considering the exercise of any powers in relation to the media or other publishers, the Information Commissioner's Office should have special regard to the obligation in law to balance the public interest in freedom of expression alongside the public interest in upholding the data protection regime.

Specific provision should be made to the effect that, in considering the exercise of any of its powers in relation to the media or other publishers, the Information Commissioner's Office must have regard to the application to a data controller of any relevant system of regulation or standards enforcement which is contained in or recognised by statute.

The prosecution powers of the Information Commissioner should be extended to include any offence which also constitutes a breach of the data protection principles.

A new duty should be introduced (whether formal or informal) for the Information Commissioner's Office to consult with the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to the exercise of its powers to undertake criminal proceedings.

The opportunity should be taken to consider amending the Data Protection Act 1998 formally to reconstitute the Information Commissioner's Office as an Information Commission, led by a Board of Commissioners with suitable expertise drawn from the worlds of regulation, public administration, law and business, and active consideration should be given in that context to the desirability of including on the Board a Commissioner from the media sector.

The Inquiry asked the Government to reconstitute the Information Commissioner's Office as an Information Commission. In September 2026, Stephanie Peacock, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, stated that regulations had commenced sections of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 to abolish the office and transfer its functions to a new Information Commission on 30 September (Stephanie Peacock, Sep 2026; Stephanie Peacock, Sep 2026). The Minister explained that the body corporate would have non-executive and executive members with collective responsibility for decision-making, though the statement did not address board expertise or including a commissioner from the media sector (Stephanie Peacock, Sep 2026; Stephanie Peacock, Sep 2026).

On the basis that the provisions of s77-78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 are brought into effect, so that increased sentencing powers are available for breaches of s55 of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Secretary of State for Justice should use the power vested in him by s124(1)(a)(i) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to invite the Sentencing Council of England and Wales to prepare guidelines in relation to data protection offences (including computer misuse).

The Inquiry asked the government to request sentencing guidelines for data protection offences. In May 2018, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office stated that sections 77 to 78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 were never commenced and were omitted (Data Protection Act 2018: Explanatory Notes, May 2018). The departments explained that these provisions were no longer needed because offences, defences, and penalties were set out in the Data Protection Act 2018 (Data Protection Act 2018: Explanatory Notes, May 2018). An invitation for the Sentencing Council of England and Wales to prepare guidelines is not mentioned in the sources (Data Protection Act 2018: Explanatory Notes, May 2018).

There should be a review of damages generally available for breach of data protection, privacy, breach of confidence or any other media-related torts, to ensure proportionate compensation including for non-pecuniary loss (all referable to the duration, extent and gravity of the contravention).

The Inquiry recommended a review of damages available for media torts and privacy breaches. In a written parliamentary answer in April 2013, Jeremy Wright, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, stated that the Civil Justice Council was to consider damages awarded for certain media torts following its work on costs protection (Jeremy Wright, Apr 2013). The Minister noted that taking this forward would ultimately be for the courts to consider, though the statement did not mention breach of data protection, privacy, breach of confidence, or non-pecuniary loss (Jeremy Wright, Apr 2013).

The Civil Justice Council should consider the level of damages in privacy, breach of confidence and data protection cases, being prepared to take evidence (from the Information Commissioner, the media and others) and thereafter to make recommendations on the appropriate level of damages for distress in such cases. How the matter is then taken forward will ultimately be for the courts to consider.

The Inquiry recommended that the Civil Justice Council review media damages for distress. In an April 2013 written answer, Jeremy Wright, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, stated that the council would consider damages awarded for certain media torts following its work on costs protection (Jeremy Wright, Apr 2013). The Minister did not mention taking evidence from the Information Commissioner or other parties, and the answer did not specify data protection (Jeremy Wright, Apr 2013). The Minister affirmed that how the issue is taken forward would ultimately be for the courts to consider (Jeremy Wright, Apr 2013).

The Report of the Law Commission on Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages should be adopted in relation to its recommendations that legislation should provide that: (a) aggravated damages should only be awarded to compensate for mental distress and should have no punitive element; (b) exemplary damages should be retained (although re-titled as punitive damages).

The Inquiry recommended adopting Law Commission proposals on aggravated and exemplary damages legislation. In April 2013, Jeremy Wright, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, stated that provisions in the Crime and Courts Bill before Parliament gave effect to the recommendations on aggravated and exemplary damages (Jeremy Wright, Apr 2013). The Minister explained that these provisions would introduce "strong and effective incentives" for relevant publishers to join a recognised independent self-regulator (Jeremy Wright, Apr 2013). The Minister did not mention adopting the Law Commission report, restricting aggravated damages to mental distress, or retitling exemplary damages as punitive damages (Jeremy Wright, Apr 2013).

As a first step, political leaders should reflect constructively on the merits of publishing on behalf of their party a statement setting out, for the public, an explanation of the approach they propose to take as a matter of party policy in conducting relationships with the press.

The suggestions that I have made in the direction of greater transparency about meetings and contacts should be considered not just as a future project but as an immediate need, not least in relation to interactions relevant to any consideration of this Report.