● <B>There have been some tension for a while now between the press generally and the government. While this is not extraordinary in itself, the prime minister has been threatening for a while to set up a Media Commission that would act as a guard dog against excesses of the press. What do you think of this? </B>

I see nothing wrong in the Parliament passing legislation setting up a body, which keeps under review the organs of press, broadcasting and the like. But it depends what such legislation provides.

● <B> The Press Complaints Commission in the UK is not a result of a legislation passed in Parliament, is it? </B>

No it?s not. What we have is self-regulation and the Press Complaints Commission has been set up by the newspaper industry itself, finances it and appoints the members of the commission. They are a mixed bunch of people with I think a majority of laymen a substantial number of whom come from the newspaper industry.

● <B> Does it have the confidence of the public as an independent Complaints Commission should? </B>

It?s difficult to say but I suspect not. One can?t be as positive as to say the public has no confidence because these are judgments that can?t be easily made. But I suspect that self-regulation does not inspire confidence in the public that this is a body that controls the excesses of the newspaper industry.

?I think a complaints body which accepts complaints from individual members of the public is a perfectly sensible body but the question is, is it enough??

● <B> What?s the point in having a self-regulated Press Complaints Commission if people don?t believe in it? </B>

I don?t think that follows. I think any self-respecting professional organisation wishes to keep under review the activities of its members and may wish in some way to control them. I think a complaints body, which accepts complaints from individual members of the public, is a perfectly sensible body but the question is, is it enough?

● <B> What would be enough? </B>

I think the public ought to have some independent body, independent of the industry as a watchdog to monitor and to keep under surveillance the activities of the organs of information. And of course in the UK we do have this in relation to television and broadcasting. They are under a regulatory system but I think, broadly speaking, in principle there is nothing wrong in having a more independent and more authoritative body, which the public will be confident is not the instrument of the industry.

● <B> But don?t the courts of law have this role; don?t libel laws do the job? </B>

Well courts of law will apply the law and the press like anyone is controlled by the law ? laws of libel, laws of contempt, protection of property rights, of copyright, etc and we?re all subject to that. I suppose the law could be alright, it could be sufficient. And, of course, there?s the great argument about whether there should be a privacy law that is to say that the ordinary citizen?s privacy should not be invaded unless it is a matter of public interest. We?re having a considerable debate in England at the moment about the non existence of a privacy law.

● <B>There are some concerns that if ever it came about, a Media Commission set up by Government might curtail our freedom of expression. </B>

What you are saying is a total mirror of what?s been happening in the United Kingdom for the last twenty, thirty years. There is always that tension between the media and government, there have been threats from time to time of imposing a regulatory system. The press very successfully has fought that off and we have a situation today where the press is not covered by any regulatory system except television and broadcasting. My comment would be that it?s a very odd thing that television and broadcasting should be under a regulatory system and not the newspaper industry. And I think there is no reason why you can?t have a regulatory system, which does not infringe on the freedom of the press

● <B>Is it that important to have a regulatory system? </B>

I think in a democratic society where the public is entitled to expect a responsible press, they are entitled to have a body, which watches over that activity and pronounces itself from time to time on particular issues. Let?s put it this way - the freedom of the press is my freedom as a citizen. You are exercising it on my behalf and I am entitled to have some control over it.

<B>Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Mauritian justice</B>

The words you just read are not Sir Louis? first ones on the Mauritian press. Blom-Cooper?s link with Mauritius dates from 1972 when he defended one of the four accused of the murder of Azor Adelaide. In his appeal against the Azor Adelaide judgment in 1973, one of the five grounds raised by Louis Blom-Cooper was that there was trial by the press. He mentioned three newspapers - ?Le Militant?, ?Week-End? and ?The Nation? - and submitted that the articles on the much politicised murder amounted to contempt of court and had prevented a fair trial. The then Chief Justice Sir Maurice Latour-Adrien had harsh words for the publications but nonetheless dismissed the ground of appeal. He said however, ?had those responsible for the publications been brought before a competent court on a charge of contempt and found guilty, nothing could have saved them from a long term in jail which they would have richly deserved.?