Free speech chief who co-wrote Leveson report set to make 'electrifying' attack on new press law Liberty boss was judge's key assessor She will open huge rift by saying plan is threat to free speech By David Rose Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti says free speech is a basic right A key adviser to Lord Justice Leveson is this week poised to electrify the debate on press regulation - with a sweeping onslaught against the proposed Royal Charter agreed by the three main political parties. Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, will say the measures it contains would give too much power to politicians - and that it poses grave threats to the freedom of speech. Her intervention will be seen as politically explosive - and as an attack on the celebrity-led campaign group, Hacked Off, which virtually dictated the charter's terms. She is said to share mounting concerns that Hacked Off has become too influential and that it is effectively demanding a right of veto on any post-Leveson plan. The impact of Ms Chakrabarti's comments will be intensified by her dual role. She leads the country's main civil rights pressure group - but was also was one of six "assessors" who guided the Leveson Inquiry, and helped to produce its report. She has said nothing about how the report should be implemented since it was published in November. But in an interview with this newspaper, she said one of its proposals - for compulsory, government-imposed regulation for newspapers which refused to join a "voluntary" regulator - would be unlawful under the Human Rights Act. On Friday the Government agreed to extend the period before the Privy Council makes a final decision on the planned charter until the middle of next month. Most of Britain's national and regional newspapers, including The Mail on Sunday, have drawn up their own rival version, which would eliminate political control. Last night, speaking to this newspaper, Ms Chakrabarti also attacked the way some official bodies have "taken Leveson in vain" by advocating repressive, authoritarian changes to the law in order to restrict information in ways the report never envisaged. Chief among them is the policy to refuse to name people charged with criminal offences - a policy now being followed by about a third of Britain's police forces. Last week Warwickshire Police cited Leveson in order to justify refusing to name retired officer Paul Greaves, who has been charged with stealing £113,000 from the force. Ms Chakrabarti also condemned the rapidly spreading police policy of refusing to name people who have been arrested, though not yet charged - even though this measure was included in the Leveson report. Lord Justice Leveson carried out his inquiry into press standards last year She said: "It's too easy to take Leveson's name in vain but what is the real motive for this new call for legislation? Do the police want to avoid making difficult decisions, or to seek a complete lock-down on information on how their powers of arrest are exercised? It is unnecessary and deeply worrying for traditions of open justice. It was wrong, she went on, for the police to disseminate untested information to the press about suspects in criminal cases and those under arrest. But she added: "So is any blanket refusal to confirm the names of those detained or charged." However, it is her views on the shape of future press regulation which will have the biggest impact. The scope and constitution of a press regulator was Leveson's central concern, and her intervention will mark the first public statement by those involved in the inquiry as to what should happen now. It is understood she is considering either a speech or a high-profile television interview in which to make her full criticisms public. The current "official" version of the charter, which will govern how the new regulator is run, emerged from an all-night meeting in March between a four-man delegation from Hacked Off, Labour's Ed Miliband, the Lib Dems" Nick Clegg and Oliver Letwin, the Tory Cabinet Office Minister. If approved by the Privy Council, it could only by changed by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament - something which, in practice, would be almost impossible to achieve. Ms Chakrabarti is said to regard this clause as anathema - because it would give the current generation of politicians who serve on the Privy Council an effective stranglehold on the shape of press regulation and freedom of speech - far into the future. Under the newspapers" rival plan - which Ms Chakrabarti and her Liberty colleagues are said to be "seriously considering" - the charter could be changed if the new regulator's board and the newspaper publishers unanimously agreed to do so. In her interview in November, she said that journalism "must never become a state-licensed profession." Some argued that because the State licenses drivers, it could therefore license the media. But in her view, "driving a car isn't a fundamental human right. Freedom of speech is. She also said she was opposed to Hacked Off's demand for "statutory underpinning" of the new regulator. Media commentator Steve Hewlett's guide to the options for press regulation... What is being proposed? There are two versions of the Royal Charter on regulating Britain's press under consideration. The first is a cross-party proposal formulated in Labour leader Ed Miliband's office late on the night of March 18, with representatives from the other two main political parties and four members of Hacked Off present - but conspicuously, nobody from the press. What is the alternative proposal? There is a separate proposal by the newspaper industry for an Independent Royal Charter which it insists will meet the recommendations of last year's Leveson report into media standards - without introducing state-sponsored regulation. This proposal is supported by most of the country's national, regional and local newspapers and magazines. The Guardian and the Independent are the only two national newspaper titles out of 11 that have not signed up. What are the areas of agreement? Both proposals agree on the need for a new press regulator to be recognised by a genuinely independent body. Both acknowledge that a Royal Charter, rather than statute, is the best way to achieve this aim. They both propose tough sanctions, including the new regulator having the power to impose fines of up to £1 million for systematic wrongdoing. Other areas in common include up-front corrections, with inaccuracies corrected fully and prominently, and strong investigative powers enabling the regulator to examine wrongdoing and call editors to account. In fact, the two parties have moved a significant distance over the past few weeks in the degree to which they agree. Why will the newspaper industry not recognise the cross-party Charter? The newspaper industry disagrees fundamentally with certain details of the cross-party proposal. It believes a number of its recommendations are unworkable in practice, and could lead to unintended consequences. For instance, there are fears that offering a free arbitration service to anyone who feels unfairly treated by the press will lead to "fine farming," in which issues that would have been solved by compromise will now be motivated by financial gain. It also believes it gives politicians an unacceptable degree of interference in the regulation of the press. How does the newspapers" proposal differ from the cross-party proposal? The newspapers" proposal would: Remove Parliament's power to block or approve future changes to regulation. Instead, the regulator, trade bodies and a newly created "recognition panel" would have to agree to changes. Members of the panel would be selected by an appointments committee chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge, and include one representative of the industry's interests, one member representing the public interest, and one public appointments assessor nominated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments for England and Wales. A ban on ex-editors being on the panel would be removed. Complaints by groups would be investigated only if the breach of the code was "significant" and if the public interest was "substantial," in order to avoid pressure group complaints. The power of the regulator to "direct" the nature, extent and placement of corrections and apologies would be changed to a "requirement" rather than a "direction." A public consultation would be held on the industry's proposals, giving newspaper and magazine readers the chance to have their say. What's happening currently? The cross-party Charter has been temporarily withdrawn as the Privy Council examines the newspaper industry's alternative document. Both parties claim they will not surrender any ground. Have there already been consequences of Lord Justice Leveson's report? Leveson suggested that unless exceptional circumstance applied, the names of those arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press or public. Fourteen of the 43 police forces in England and Wales are now keeping secret the names of suspects even when they have been charged. Shami Chakrabarti, an adviser to the Leveson Inquiry, has described this controversial practice as "chilling." What's the likely outcome? The Government is well aware that there's a serious risk the press will refuse to seek recognition from the new body, which would render the scheme totally unworkable. Then, politicians would have to impose regulation upon the press by legislation - which nobody wants. It is in everybody's interests to come to an agreement, and to properly address certain key points of the proposal. So it is likely negotiations will continue until a compromise has been reached. MPs: We're siding with press over media rules Lib Dem MP John Hemming is breaking ranks to back press self-regulation Senior MPs last night swung their support behind the newspaper industry's plan for self-regulation. Labour's Kate Hoey and the Liberal Democrats" John Hemming became the first MPs to break ranks with their party leaders to oppose a Royal Charter scheme giving Parliament the power to dictate terms over the press. Their move came after the Privy council said the plan would not be considered until it had studied the industry's proposal for a rigorous system of regulation - which would keep the press free from state interference. Last night, Ms Hoey warned the Royal Charter scheme would crush campaigning journalism. "If the Charter plan had been in existence at the time of the MPs" expenses scandal, the revelations would never have emerged," she said. There is an element of revenge to this. Kate Hooey MP is also opposed to a Royal Charter I have always been uneasy about the huge influence wielded by a small, cliquey, elite. It is wrong to introduce legislation to cover up the misdemeanours and embarrassment of the high and mighty. Ms Hoey said the Royal Charter scheme could also have a "devastating effect" on local newspapers: "The cost of dealing with large numbers of complaints, many trivial or vexatious, will be huge and could drive them out of business." She was supported by Lib Dem Mr Hemming, who said: "I was worried about a Royal Charter that would be controlled by the Government - but the newspapers are proposing one which is not subject to the whim of the Prime Minister of the day. That is essential. Some people are not committed to free speech and to have them in a position of power over the press is like putting a fox in charge of the chicken coop.