Duty to Protect Press Freedom
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: UK Government
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
In passing legislation to identify the legitimate requirements to be met by an independent regulator organised by the press, and to provide for a process of recognition and review of whether those requirements are and continue to be met, the law should also place an explicit duty on the Government to uphold and protect the freedom of the press.
Leveson Inquiry, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 29 Nov 2012 Source PDF →
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
The government established a Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press (granted 30 October 2013) and passed the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as its legislative response. This was an alternative to the statutory framework Leveson recommended. The Press Recognition Panel was created under the Royal Charter as the recognition body. The Prime Minister stated on 29 November 2012 that he accepted the principles but had "serious concerns and misgivings" about statutory underpinning. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/david-cameron-statement-in-response-to-the-leveson-inquiry-report
UK Government · 29 Nov 2012 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 27 Feb 2025 · UK Parliament No explicit statutory duty on the Government to uphold and protect the freedom of the press was enacted alongside the recognition legislation. View source → Not Implemented
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.