Take 10 - 5 March 2026

Welcome back to RPC's Media and Communications law update where we recap on the key media judgments and developments over the last few months.

"Article 10.1: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

Enhanced Ofcom regulation for video-on-demand services

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has announced that video-on-demand (VoD) services provided by platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+, and public service broadcasters like ITVX and Channel 4 will be brought within Ofcom’s regulatory regime under secondary legislation to implement the Media Act 2024. Ofcom intends to introduce a new VoD Code which will set out specific rules for VoD services with over 500,000 UK viewers. This is expected to mirror many of the rules in place for traditional broadcasters under the Broadcasting Code in relation to harmful and offensive content, privacy, fairness and due impartiality and accuracy in news. It will also set minimum accessibility requirements. A public consultation will commence after the relevant services are designated on 1 April 2026, with the final VoD Code expected to be published later this year, before coming into effect one year after publication. Under the new regulatory framework, Ofcom will have powers to investigate alleged breaches of the VoD Code and, if appropriate, impose financial penalties of up to £250,000 or 5% of a service’s UK revenue.

High Court grants limited RRO over findings on allegations of criminal conduct

Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady DBE has granted a reporting restriction order (RRO) under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in respect of ten findings in her trial judgment in Feldman & Alexander v Gambling Commission [2026] EWHC 474 (KB). The claim relates in part to a criminal investigation by HMRC into a company of where the claimants held senior positions at the relevant time. Eady J held that while there was a public interest in understanding the court's decision on allegations made in open court proceedings, particularly where such allegations concern a regulatory body, the RRO was necessary to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in respect of criminal proceedings against the claimants due to be tried in 2028. There was a nexus between the court's findings and the matters to be determined in the criminal proceedings, and there was not an insubstantial risk that reporting at this stage would prejudice the claimants on an issue of real significance in those proceedings, notwithstanding the standard judicial direction to jurors to disregard any material outside that adduced as evidence at trial. Eady J was not persuaded by the claimants' request for the RRO to cover the entire judgment, finding that the publication of a redacted judgment would not give rise to a risk of prejudicial speculation as there would be no unfairness to the claimants with the RRO postponing the need for the claimants to explain or comment on the findings.

Updated media guidelines published for police 

Following a consultation on its media and communication standards last year, the College of Policing has published new guidance governing police communications with the media. The guidance encourages engagement with the press to rebuild trust and strengthen the relationship between the media and police forces, while combating the proliferation of misinformation through the provision of prompt, accurate information to the public. The guidance provides that the police have no power to stop the press filming or photographing public incidents, should confirm the nationality/ethnicity of suspects arrested in high-profile investigations and release readily available information to the press. The guidance also reiterates the need for openness and transparency in relation to police misconduct cases and that secrecy should be maintained over the name of arrested suspects save where there are exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so, such as a threat to life or the prevention or detection of crime. 

New media coalition to challenge unauthorised use of content by AI

Five UK media organisations (BBC, Financial Times, The Guardian, Sky News and Telegraph Media Group), have announced the formation of the Standards for Publisher Usage Rights coalition.  The announcement comes in advance of the report and economic impact assessment on AI and copyright policy due to be completed by the UK Government by 18 March 2026. Media stakeholders have expressed concern that the Government may introduce a copyright exception for the use of content in training AI models where this is characterised as being for research purposes. The coalition's mission is to develop shared industry standards governing the use of publishers’ content by AI companies while ensuring that publishers retain practical control of their content and receive fair payment for its use. The coalition also seeks to promote transparency in how content is used and to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights. The coalition's open letter can be found here.

High Court dismisses appeal over Qur’an burning acquittal

The decision in DPP v Coskun [2026] EWHC 427 (Admin) provides commentary on of the scope and limits of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. Mr Coskun set fire to a copy of the Qur’an while shouting negative statements about Islam outside the Turkish consulate in London in February 2025. He was charged with religiously aggravated public order offences and subsequently convicted in the Magistrates' Court before being acquitted on appeal to the Crown Court. The DPP appealed the Crown Court's decision. In dismissing the DPP's appeal, the High Court noted that the right to freedom of expression is not confined to the use of written or spoken words but extends to "expressive acts". While it is not an unqualified right, Article 10 does not prohibit provocative or offensive behaviour provided it is not aimed at the destruction of democratic values nor amounts to a criminal offence. The High Court found no error of law in the Crown Court's decision, ruling that it had been entitled to take into account the nature of the protest, its location outside a diplomatic mission, the fact that Mr Coskun was acting alone, and the short time it lasted, when deciding whether his behaviour amounted to criminal conduct. Mr Coskun's actions, which constituted robust political and religious protest, were covered by Article 10 and did not attract criminal liability.  

Police and MI5 admit to unlawful surveillance of former BBC journalist

At a hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) last week, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) admitted that it illegally obtained information relating to over 1,500 telephone calls and texts made and received by Vincent Kearney, a Belfast journalist, between 2009 and 2014 to identify his journalistic sources. This follows admissions by MI5 and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) that they unlawfully obtained Mr Kearney's data on four separate occasions between 2006 and 2009 and in 2012. The Tribunal reserved its judgment. Mr Kearney's claim follows in the footsteps of the successful IPT claims brought by Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney, two Northen Ireland-based journalists. In 2024, the IPT ruled that they had been subjected to unlawful surveillance by the PSNI and that Mr McCaffrey's phone data had been unlawfully accessed by both the PSNI and the MPS. Various bodies, including the National Union of Journalists and Amnesty International UK, are now calling for a full public inquiry into the unlawful surveillance on journalists.

Nicklin J permits 'key' witness to give evidence remotely

Mr Justice Nicklin has handed down judgment on an application seeking permission for a witness to give evidence via video-link in the ongoing trial in Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited. The witness's testimony provides the basis for a substantial number of vigorously disputed allegations of unlawful information gathering made against ANL. He previously withdrew his cooperation from the Claimants who rely on his evidence only as hearsay. Under CPR 32.3 and PD32 Annex 3, the Court may permit remote evidence where there is a good reason, a legitimate aim is served, and it accords with the overriding objective. Nicklin J was satisfied that the conditions were met. The witness resides in an undisclosed foreign jurisdiction and is not compellable and refused to voluntarily attend in person due to security concerns but confirmed he would give evidence via video-link. On the evidence before the Court, the law of the foreign state does not prohibit the giving of remote evidence. The witness's evidence was held to be of vital importance to the fair resolution of the issues in dispute with there being a clear benefit for it to be tested adversarially. The trial continues.

Provisional Ofcom finding regarding breach of the Online Safety Act 2023

Ofcom has issued a provisional notice of contravention to the provider of an unnamed online suicide discussion forum under section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023.  After it opened an investigation into the provider last April, the provider implemented a voluntary 'geo-block' to prevent users with UK IP addresses from accessing the forum. However, subsequent monitoring suggested that the block was ineffective or not consistently maintained, with the site still accessible from the UK, including via a 'mirror' domain. Ofcom considers there are reasonable grounds to believe the provider has breached the OSA by failing to carry out an adequate illegal content risk assessment or implement proportionate measures to prevent access toillegal content, and because it lacks effective systems for rapid removal of such content. Ofcom also noted that the platform’s terms of service did not clearly set out protections against illegal content, contrary to statutory requirements. This highlights the limits of simple IP‑based blocking, which can often be bypassed using VPNs or alternative domains if platforms do not deploy more robust technical controls. The provider now has 10 working days to respond to the provisional decision, following which Ofcom may impose fines and/or seek a court order requiring UK internet service providers to block access to the site at a network level.

IPSO find the Daily Telegraph did not breach IPSO Code over claim of "Islamist savagery"

IPSO has found that The Daily Telegraph did not breach Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code in relation to an article published in August 2025 which contained an interview with a woman convicted in relation to a tweet she posted after the Southport attack. The article repeated the woman's assertion that the attacks were "Islamist savagery". The complainant claimed this description was inaccurate and misleading as it could not be objectively verified, that the fact that the attacker was in possession of an Al Qaeda manual did not render the attacks "Islamist savagery" and that the description was not clearly labelled as opinion contrary to Clause 1(iv) which requires clear distinction between comment, conjecture, and fact. IPSO dismissed the complaint, finding that the article was a feature piece which clearly recounted the subjective experience of the author during his interview and made clear that the description was the author's belief, thereby sufficiently distinguishing it from an objective claim of fact.  Furthermore, the fact copies of an Al Qaeda manual had been found at the attacker's home was a suitable basis for the author's opinion.

Government launches consultation to protect UK children's digital wellbeing 

On 2 March, the UK Government launched "the world's most ambitious" consultation on social media. The consultation seeks to explore measures to keep children safe online across social media, AI chatbots and gaming platforms. Key issues being consulted on include whether there should be a minimum age for social media, whether age verification enforcement should be strengthened and whether children should be able to use AI chatbots without restriction. A parallel academic panel will also assess the expanding evidence base arising from the experiences of other countries.  For example, Australia recently banned under-16s from using major social media services through legislation which requires platforms to implement extensive age verification methods to prevent under-16s from accessing their services or face fines of up to £25m for serious or repeated breaches. Two months in, recent media reporting suggests the ban is not watertight. The consultation closes on 26 May 2026.

Quote of the fortnight

"Our courts have, once again, laid bare a deeply troubling pattern: covert and unlawful surveillance of journalists, coupled with a reckless disregard for press freedom by both police forces and the security service… No press can remain truly free while secretly monitored by the very power it is meant to hold accountable."

Patrick Corrigan, Northern Ireland Director of Amnesty International, 26 February 2026