No they are not. This is a public duty, which I enjoy.

In my view, it follows that the introduction of custodial sentences for section 55 offences committed by journalists is capable of interfering with their article 10 rights. Accordingly, under the consistent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the introduction of those sanctions cannot be justified, unless there is a pressing social need and the interference is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Furthermore, the reasons for introducing those sanctions must be relevant and sufficient.

The inclusion of a penalty of imprisonment within the civil liability deterrent regime has not been shown to be a necessary response to any pressing social need, or to be proportionate or otherwise justified. I said at the beginning of my remarks that there have been only 26 prosecutions under section 55 of the 1998 Act and that only two of those resulted in fines of more than £5,000. If that is correct, and on the facts as we know them, there does not seem to be a need to ratchet up the criminal regime so dramatically.

According to the Government’s response to the consultation process, or at least to the remarks from the groups that I mentioned before—the editors and so forth—they do not expect the number of prosecutions to increase if custodial sentences are made available. It must follow, therefore, that the prosecution of offences has not been discouraged by the lack of custodial sentences. Furthermore, in view of the few prosecutions that have taken place, the penalties imposed have tended to be modest fines—some in the low hundreds—even though a conviction on indictment makes an unlimited fine available.

The facts and arguments that I have presented to the Committee suggest that existing penalties are more than sufficient to deal with offences under section 55. On that basis, I urge the Government to rethink clause 75 and to consider whether their proposals are necessary and justified.