Public Interest Record Keeping
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: Press
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
A new regulatory body should consider being explicit that where a public interest justification is to be relied upon, a record should be available of the factors weighing against and in favour of publication, along with a record of the reasons for the conclusion reached.
Leveson Inquiry, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 29 Nov 2012 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:
- There is no consistent requirement in the IPSO Editors' Code or IPSO's regulations for publishers to maintain records of the factors weighing for and against publication where a public interest justification is relied upon (IPSO Editors' Code of Practice, accessed March 2026).
- While the code states that the regulator will require the editor to demonstrate that he or she reasonably believed publication was in the public interest, it does not require contemporaneous records of the deliberation process.
- No published evidence of IPSO implementing a formal record-keeping requirement for public interest decisions has been identified.
How was this evidence gathered?
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
The Prime Minister stated on 29 November 2012 that he accepted "the principles that Lord Justice Leveson has laid out" for independent self-regulation, including "an independent board, a standards code, an arbitration service and the power to demand up-front, prominent apologies and impose million-pound fines." However, he rejected statutory underpinning, expressing "serious concerns and misgivings" about crossing "the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land." The Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press was granted on 30 October 2013, establishing the Press Recognition Panel as the recognition body. IPSO was established in September 2014 but has not sought Royal Charter recognition. IMPRESS was recognised by the PRP in October 2016. 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 · IPSO There is no consistent requirement for publishers to maintain records of public interest deliberations. While the Editors' Code refers to public interest, it does not require the record-keeping Leveson recommended. View source → Insufficient Progress
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.