Home / Inquiries / Leveson Inquiry / L16
← L15 L17 →
L16

Apology Placement Power

Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: Press

Government responsePrime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street: Accepted in part (Nov 2012)

DeliveryNo statement from Press found

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

The power to direct the nature, extent and placement of apologies should lie with the Board.

Leveson Inquiry, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 29 Nov 2012 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

AI-generated evidence summary

The Inquiry recommended that a regulatory board have the power to direct apologies. David Cameron, Prime Minister, stated in November 2012 that he accepted the principles of the report, affirming that a self-regulatory body must have authority to require prominent apologies and that the onus lay with the press to implement them (David Cameron response, Nov 2012). The Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press, granted by the Privy Council in October 2013, set out that the power to direct the nature, extent and placement of apologies and corrections should lie with the regulatory board in the absence of an agreement (Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press, Oct 2013).

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 2 Oct 2026.

Report-level response context

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.

Government response

●Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street · Accepted in part · 29 Nov 2012

Words of: David Cameron, Prime Minister, statement to the House of Commons on the Leveson Inquiry report, 29 November 2012 (HC Deb vol 554 cols 446-448)

In volume IV of the report, Lord Justice Leveson sets out proposals for independent self-regulation organised by the media. He details the key “requirements” that an independent self-regulatory body should meet, including independence of appointments and funding, a standards code, an arbitration service, and a speedy complaint-handling mechanism. Crucially, it must have the power to demand up-front, prominent apologies and impose up to million-pound fines. These are the Leveson principles. They are the central recommendations of the report. If they can be put in place, we truly will have a regulatory system that delivers public confidence, justice for the victims, and a step change in the way the press is regulated in our country. I accept these principles, and I hope that the whole House will come in behind them. The onus should now be on the press to implement them—and implement them radically.

Response document: Leveson Inquiry (House of Commons statement)

Site note: The Prime Minister's statement to the House of Commons on 29 November 2012, the day the report was published, and his answers to members' questions on it (Official Report, HC Deb vol 554, from col 446). He speaks for the Government; the site files his words under the Prime Minister's Office.

Site note: The Prime Minister gives this passage once, for the report's proposals for independent self-regulation of the press as a whole ("the Leveson principles", col 448). The same words are recorded on recommendations 1 to 24 and 34 to 47.

Delivery

No statement on delivery from Press has been found in the sources searched. This is separate from the response above.

What other bodies have found

In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.

●UK Government · 30 Oct 2013

16. In the event of no agreement between a complainant and a subscriber (pursuant to criterion 10), the power to direct the nature, extent and placement of corrections and apologies should lie with the Board.

From: Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press

Site note: The passage is the text of the Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press, granted on 30 October 2013. The Charter sets up the Recognition Panel and the criteria a press regulator must meet to be recognised. It does not report what any regulator or publisher has done.

How this page is built

The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.