{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020627062706270627, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.946078431372549, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The changing face of protection for individual privacy against the press: Leveson, the Royal Charter and tort liability

This article evaluates two significant methods of protecting private information in the UK – via actions under the tort of misuse of private information, and via press regulation. As the Leveson Report has recently found, parts of the press have systematically abused their power, in terms of acquiring and publishing personal information non-consensually. Thus, as the Report found, it appears that the system of press self-regulation has been shown to be ineffective. The article considers the Leveson proposals for an improved system of press regulation and the current proposal of a Royal Charter. It suggests that, ideally, press regulation could work alongside the tort, tending to encourage press restraint, obviate the need for court action, and providing a remedy for those not willing or able, due to lack of resources, to go to court to seek a remedy for privacy invasion. The history of press self-regulation indicates that those results may not be achieved, but it will be argued that the current response to the Leveson Report in the form of a Royal Charter suggests otherwise.