Home / Inquiries / Leveson Inquiry / L71
← L70 L72 →
L71

Aggravated and Exemplary Damages

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

Government responseNo response yet

DeliveryMinistry of Justice says in progress (Apr 2013)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

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).

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 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).

Sources

Jeremy Wright, Apr 2013

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 1 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

●No formal government response recorded

The Index has not yet recorded a verbatim government response to this recommendation.

Site note: No government response to this recommendation was published at the time of the report. The Government's response to the consultation on the Leveson Inquiry (1 March 2018) does not mention it. The Ministry of Justice's written answer of 25 April 2013 refers to it and is recorded as an update. Searched for this site between 23 and 25 September 2026, among other sources: the Prime Minister's statements to the House of Commons of 29 November 2012 and 18 March 2013, the Government's response to the consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and its implementation (1 March 2018), the Information Commissioner's response to the report (7 January 2013), and Parliament's written questions and answers that mention Leveson.

Delivery

●Ministry of Justice says in progress · 25 Apr 2013

Provisions in the Crime and Courts Bill, which is currently before Parliament, give effect to the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson relating to aggravated and exemplary damages (Recommendations 71 and 72) and the awards of costs (Recommendation 73). These provisions will introduce strong and effective incentives for relevant publishers to join a recognised independent self-regulator.

From: Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry (Commons written answer), Jeremy Wright, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice

Site note: The source gives this passage once, for recommendations 71, 72 and 73 together. The same words are recorded on L71, L72 and L73.

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.