Completed
· Chair: Lord Justice Leveson
· Established July 2011
· Commissioned by Cabinet Office
The Leveson Inquiry examined the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal.
More about this inquiry
The Leveson Inquiry examined the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal. Part 1 made 92 recommendations on press regulation, data protection, police-media relations, and media plurality. Many recommendations were not implemented; the government rejected statutory press regulation in favour of the industry-created IPSO.
No statement from Press found in the sources searched 38
No statement from UK Government found in the sources searched 12
No statement from Information Commissioner found in the sources searched 9
UK Government states no delivery position 7
No statement from National Police Chiefs Council or Police found in the sources searched 4
UK Government says not accepted 4
Ministry of Justice says in progress 3
No statement from Police or National Police Chiefs Council found in the sources searched 3
No statement from Politicians found in the sources searched 2
Department for Culture, Media and Sport says in progress 1
Department for Culture, Media and Sport says partially delivered 1
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2017 to 2023) says not accepted 1
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2017 to 2023) states no delivery position 1
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2017 to 2023) says partially delivered 1
Home Office states no delivery position 1
Information Commissioner says completed 1
Ministry of Justice says not accepted 1
No statement from Ofcom found in the sources searched 1
Ofcom says in progress 1
Blanket response: PM David Cameron responded to all 92 recommendations with a single statement accepting them "in principle" or "in part". No per-recommendation response was published.
Record checked against the sources 24 February 2026. Latest activity 14 September 2026.
Noted · No statement from Information Commissioner found
Recommended
In any reconsideration of the powers of the Information Commissioner (or replacement body), power should be given to that body to determine that membership of a satisfactory regulatory body, which required appropriate governance and transparency standards from its members in relation to compliance with data protection legislation and good practice, should be taken into account when considering whether it is necessary or proportionate to take any steps in relation to a subscriber to that body.
Since then (summary written by this site)
The Inquiry recommended taking regulatory body membership into account during data protection enforcement. In January 2013, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) acknowledged "the importance of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations about the recognition the ICO might be able to give" (Information Commissioner’s Office response, Jan 2013). The response does not mention statutory powers or considering membership when taking enforcement steps (Information Commissioner’s Office response, Jan 2013).
Addressed to Information Commissioner · Full record
The exemption in section 32 of the Data Protection Act 1998 should be amended so as to make it available only where: (a) the processing of data is necessary for publication, rather than simply being in fact undertaken with a view to publication; (b) the data controller reasonably believes that the relevant publication would be or is in the public interest, with no special weighting of the balance between the public interest in freedom of expression and in privacy; and (c) objectively, that the likely interference with privacy resulting from the processing of the data is outweighed by the public interest in publication.
Since then (summary written by this site)
The Inquiry recommended amending the Data Protection Act exemption for journalism. In December 2017, Lord Keen of Elie, Advocate-General for Scotland, responding for the UK Government, addressed the recommendation regarding special weighting, stating that weighting for freedom of expression and information was "an essential way of ensuring that information that is in the public interest is not buried" (Lord Keen of Elie, Dec 2017). In November 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron stated that proposals reducing the special treatment afforded to journalists under data protection legislation required careful consideration (David Cameron response, Nov 2012; David Cameron, Nov 2012).
Noted · UK Government states no delivery position (13 December 2017; nothing later found)
Recommended
The exemption in section 32 of the Data Protection Act 1998 should be narrowed in scope, so that it no longer allows, by itself, for exemption from: (a) the requirement of the first data protection principle to process personal data fairly (except in relation to the provision of information to the data subject under paragraph 2(1)(a) of Part II Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act) and in accordance with statute law; (b) the second data protection principle (personal data to be obtained only for specific purposes and not processed incompatibly with those purposes); (c) the fourth data protection principle (personal data to be accurate and kept up to date); (d) the sixth data protection principle (personal data to be processed in accordance with the rights of individuals under the Act); (e) the eighth data protection principle (restrictions on exporting personal data); and (f) the right of subject access. The recommendation on the removal of the right of subject access from the scope of section 32 is subject to any necessary clarification that the law relating to the protection of journalists' sources is not affected by the Act.
Since then (summary written by this site)
The Inquiry recommended narrowing the scope of data protection exemptions available to journalists. In December 2017, Lord Keen of Elie, Advocate-General for Scotland, stated for the UK Government that the Data Protection Bill protected journalists relying on exemptions for public interest journalism regardless of regulator membership, though the specific restrictions named in the recommendation were not mentioned (Lord Keen of Elie, Dec 2017). Earlier, in November 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons that proposals reducing special data protection treatment for journalists required careful consideration regarding their potential effect on investigative journalism (David Cameron response, Nov 2012; David Cameron, Nov 2012).
Noted · UK Government states no delivery position (29 November 2012; nothing later found)
Recommended
The procedural provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 with special application to journalism in: (a) section 32(4) and (5) (b) sections 44 to 46 inclusive should be repealed.
Since then (summary written by this site)
The Inquiry recommended repealing specific procedural provisions for journalism under data protection legislation. In November 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron stated that proposals reducing special data protection treatment for journalists required careful consideration, noting he was "instinctively concerned" about the impact on investigative journalism, though sections 32(4), 32(5), and 44 to 46 are not mentioned in the sources (David Cameron response, Nov 2012; David Cameron, Nov 2012).
Noted · Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2017 to 2023) says not accepted
Recommended
The necessary steps should be taken to bring into force the amendments made to section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 by section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (increase of sentence maxima) to the extent of the maximum specified period; and by section 78 of the 2008 Act (enhanced defence for public interest journalism).
Since then (summary written by this site)
The Inquiry recommended commencing increased penalties and journalistic defences for unlawfully obtaining data. In May 2018, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office stated that the provisions were omitted and never commenced, explaining that offences, defences, and penalties were instead set out in the Data Protection Act 2018 (Data Protection Act 2018: Explanatory Notes, May 2018). Earlier, in January 2013, Helen Grant, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, stated that the Government was considering whether to introduce them given potential consequences for investigative journalism (Helen Grant, Jan 2013). In November 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron stated that the Government needed to look at the issue very carefully (David Cameron response, Nov 2012; David Cameron, Nov 2012).
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsIan Sollom · Liberal Democrat
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps she is taking to implement the recommendations of Part One of the Leveson Inquiry; and whether she plans to resume Part Two.
Answered by Department for Culture, Media and Sport: The Leveson Inquiry led to changes in the regulatory system of the press, which included the creation of the Press Recognition Panel, by Royal Charter, and two new press regulators, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and the Independent Monitor of the Press (Impress). This is a self-regulatory system, which was established to be independent from Government and protect press …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsFreddie van Mierlo · Liberal Democrat
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what plans the Government has to meet with the victims of press abuse who have written to the Government to request a meeting.
Answered by Department for Culture, Media and Sport: The Leveson Inquiry led to changes in the regulatory system of the press, which included the creation of the Press Recognition Panel, by Royal Charter and two new press regulators, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and the Independent Monitor of the Press (Impress). This is a self-regulatory system, which was established to be independent from Government and protect press …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsCatherine West · Labour
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whether she plans to take steps to implement the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry.
Answered by Department for Culture, Media and Sport: The Leveson Inquiry led to changes in the regulatory system of the press, which included the creation of the Press Recognition Panel, by Royal Charter and two new press regulators, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and the Independent Monitor of the Press (Impress). This is a self-regulatory system, which was established to be independent from Government and protect press …
Early Day MotionHouse of CommonsKim Johnson · Labour
Said: This House notes the findings from the Lammy Review of 2018 that shows that Black and Chinese women are found guilty at much higher rates than White women by magistrates, but not by juries; further notes the 2022 Racial Bias and the Bench report, which …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsCat Eccles · Labour
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what recent assessment she has made of the potential merits of holding the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.
Answered by Department for Culture, Media and Sport: The Government has clearly laid out its priorities in the manifesto and in the King’s speech, and the second part of Leveson is not among them.
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsAlex Brewer · Liberal Democrat
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps her Department has taken to (a) implement the recommendations made by the Leveson Inquiry and (b) support victims of press misinformation.
Answered by Department for Culture, Media and Sport: The Leveson Inquiry led to the establishment of a strengthened, self-regulatory system for the press, this includes the creation of the Press Recognition Panel, by Royal Charter. There are also two press regulators, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and the Independent Monitor of the Press (Impress), while other publishers, including the Financial Times and the Guardian, have chosen to …
Written Ministerial StatementHouse of CommonsLisa Nandy · Labour
Statement: This is a joint statement made with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.As Ministers with joint responsibility for the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, today under section 20(7) of the Inquiries Act 2005, we have decided to …
Written Ministerial StatementHouse of LordsBaroness Twycross · Labour
Statement: I am repeating the following Written Ministerial Statement made today in the other place by my Right Honourable Friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy MP:This is a joint statement made with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.As …
The Leveson Inquiry was established in November 2011 following revelations about phone hacking and other press misconduct. Lord Justice Leveson's report, published on 29 November 2012, made 92 recommendations covering press regulation, data protection, police-press relations, and media plurality.
The government's response was mixed. The Prime Minister stated on 29 November 2012 that he accepted "the principles that Lord Justice Leveson has laid out" for independent self-regulation but rejected statutory underpinning, expressing "serious concerns and misgivings" about crossing "the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land." Of the 92 recommendations, the government accepted 19 (21%), accepted in principle 58 (63%), and did not accept 15 (16%).
The government's legislative response centred on establishing the Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press (October 2013) and passing the Crime and Courts Act 2013. This created an alternative to Leveson's recommended statutory framework. The Press Recognition Panel was established under the Charter, though no major news publisher has joined a recognised regulator.
Specific reforms that followed include: the Data Protection Act 2018 incorporating some Leveson recommendations, including compensation for distress without pecuniary loss and requiring the ICO to produce a journalism code of practice; the College of Policing publishing guidance on media relations; and continued publication of ministerial transparency data.
However, a key provision - Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would have created costs incentives for joining a recognised regulator - was never commenced and was repealed in 2024. The government stated this was because "this recommendation was contingent on a costs incentive framework that no longer exists."
Published evidence of progress is limited. Records indicate that 77 of the 92 recommendations (84%) remain listed as "Awaiting Action" with no documented evidence of implementation thirteen years after the report's publication.
Reforms attributed to this inquiry · AI-generated- The Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press was established (granted 30 October 2013), creating a framework for press regulation - The Press Recognition Panel was created under the Royal Charter as the recognition body for press regulators - The Crime and Courts Act 2013 was enacted, including provisions for exemplary damages against publishers not belonging to a recognised regulatory body (Sections 34-42 commenced 3 November 2015) - The Data Protection Act 2018 (Section 168) provides for compensation for distress without requiring pecuniary loss - The Data Protection Act 2018 (Section 124) required the Information Commissioner's Office to produce a data protection and journalism code of practice, published in 2023 - The College of Policing published Authorised Professional Practice on Media Relations in May 2013 - Quarterly publication of ministerial transparency data on meetings with media proprietors, editors, and senior executives (continuing since 2010) - Ofcom developed a measurement framework for media plurality in 2015 and publishes regular Media Nations reportsReforms reversed or weakened · AI-generated- Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would have created costs incentives for publishers to join a recognised regulatory body, was enacted but never commenced. The Secretary of State announced on 1 March 2018 that it would not be commenced and would be repealed. It was repealed by Section 50 of the Media Act 2024 (Royal Assent 24 May 2024)Unfinished business · AI-generated- No published evidence has been identified for action on 77 of the 92 recommendations (84%), which remain recorded as 'Awaiting Action' - The formal review of damages for privacy and data protection breaches recommended by Leveson was not conducted, though court awards have increased through case law - The recommendation to remove the broad journalism exemption from data protection law was not accepted - No evidence of implementation for recommendations on civil justice reforms beyond the repealed Section 40