Leveson inquiry: Max Mosley says press tribunal must be in driving seat Leveson inquiry: Max Mosley proposed a statutory-backed tribunal. The death of Ayrton Senna may not immediately appear to be relevant to the future of press regulation in the UK. But former Formula One boss Max Mosley drew on his experience of the investigation into Senna's fatal 1994 crash in San Marino when he made his second appearance before the Leveson inquiry on Wednesday morning. Mosley, who returned to give evidence on Wednesday to outline his thoughts on what sort of regulator should replace the Press Complaints Commission, said he had a "great deal of sympathy" with newspapers which resisted outside interference. He added that he had spent many years running F1 and indeed all motorsport "and what one dreaded was well meaning people from the outside interfering in something they didn't completely understand." "When Ayrton Senna was killed in 1994 the entire resources of the Italian judicial system was focused on the question of why did the car crash," he said. Mosley, who previously gave evidence to the inquiry in November last year as a victim of press intrusion, said the Italian authorities were asking the wrong question - not why the car crashed, but why Senna died. "In racing they are always going to crash," he added. Ten years of proceedings through the Italian judicial system focused on a question that didn't matter. That is not to say that Mosley's proposals for the future of press regulation in the UK excluded outside interference. He suggested the creation of two bodies, a Press Commission which would succeed the PCC and create the rules, and a statutory-backed tribunal that would enforce the new regulatory environment. Mosley said the tribunal should have the power to impose high court-style injunctions on newspapers, with publishers required to give prior notification of stories except in "very rare" cases of exceptional public interest. The former F1 boss said it was "absolutely fundamental" that everyone should be able to afford to bring proceedings for defamation or breach of privacy, which he said was "so expensive only 1% of the population can afford it." Lord Justice Leveson suggested it may be even less than that. "That is probably right," said Mosley, who said securing an injunction cost "£10,000 minimum. For a trial you've got to be prepared to put £1m at risk. "The majority of people are deprived of any remedy," added Mosley. I think that is completely wrong. But Leveson, whose inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of the press is in its final stages, suggested Mosley's F1 parallel "may not be perfect." "In motor racing both systems wanted the same ultimate goal, safer motor racing with less risk, whereas it may be the public and the press have slightly different objectives with the publication of material?" he said. "Up to a point," replied Mosley. The objective of the press is to inform the public about things which they need to know plus entertain the public and those are perfectly legitimate aspirations and equally the public want them. They only come into conflict, the public and the press, when the press wants to do something that impinges on the rights of the public. Hence, said Mosley, the need for a statutory-backed tribunal. He said his proposed Press Commission would have more outsiders than are currently involved with the PCC and its editors' code of practice committee. "You need the public involved in making the rules," he said. Newspaper editors, he added, "should play a part in the discussion, they should not be excluded completely. That can be a non-statutory body provided there is a statutory body to stop breaching of the rules. Mosley, in his written evidence to the inquiry, said a section of the British press had adopted a "bullying and dishonest approach to litigation." He said his proposed tribunal would have the power to fine up to 10% of the publication's group turnover, with damages capped at £10,000 but with the power to refer to the high court for assessment of higher damages. The new regulatory regime could be funded by a levy of less than 1p, possibly 0.1p, for every copy distributed of any publication with a circulation exceeding 30,000.