Leveson, the British media and the law Even as Lord Justice Leveson puts the final touches to his report into the British media, a vigorous debate has started about its likely conclusions. With the report certain to recommend changes to the system of press regulation, battle is now joined over whether any new regulatory regime should be enshrined in statute. Broadly, the division lies between those proponents who argue that legislation is vital to underpin the widespread adoption and effectiveness of any new regime, and those who fear that writing it into law will open the door to state interference. There is a strong case for regulatory change. The phone-hacking scandal has revealed serious ethical shortcomings in the way that some newspapers have operated. It is also clear that the existing system of self-regulation, in the form of the Press Complaints Commission, has failed. But the Financial Times remains wary of opening the door to state intervention. The primary purpose of regulation must be to protect the public from unfair treatment at the hands of the press. This can be done without the state's direct involvement. The idea of formal state regulation or the licensing of journalists is anathema. Both would directly expose the press to unacceptable political interference. Lord Hunt and Lord Black have proposed a new regulatory body, in which independent laymen would be in the majority. This body would have greater powers than the PCC, and would enforce compliance with the editors" code of conduct, by fines if necessary. The proposal requires further tweaking to guarantee its independence from the industry but it is basically sound. The main argument for backing such a body with statute is that media organisations would be obliged to accept its oversight, whereas the Hunt/Black plan envisages adoption through voluntary contract. Extending coverage to online organisations outside the PCC could both level the regulatory playing field and reduce the cost to each participating organisation. However, there are reasons to doubt how effective it might be in corralling outsiders. Online operators do not need to be domiciled in the UK to distribute content there. No regulatory system could encompass the myriad sources of online news now available. And to achieve even this dubious benefit, a legal Rubicon would have to be crossed. Both the code administered by this new body and its membership would come under statutory control for the first time. While the present government might not intend to intervene further, a precedent would be set. It is an invitation to meddle. There is a strong public interest in the preservation of a raucous and independent media that can expose injustice and hold power to account. British newspapers have an honourable tradition of performing this role. This must not be dulled by regulation - however well-meaning. Those who argue that the press is under-regulated ignore the fact that the UK already has a plethora of legislation to deal with media excesses. It has some of the toughest libel laws in the developed world. The advent of contingency-fee arrangements means these are available not only to the rich but to anyone with a good case. It also has a developing privacy law, and the law of contempt, which has recently been invoked against several newspapers. Many of the abuses that marked the hacking scandal - the interception of messages, bribing of the police and so on - were already criminal offences. A number of journalists are likely to be jailed as a result of breaching them. Those who live within the law should have no need of state sanction to operate newspapers. This is a sound principle. Lord Justice Leveson and the government should beware of overturning it.