In November 2016, Theresa May’s government cancelled the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, which had been mandated by Parliament to examine the relationship between the press, the police, and politicians, and to assess whether the culture of unlawful information-gathering at tabloid newspapers had been adequately addressed. Ten years on, Exposed News examines what has changed — and what has not.
Phone-Hacking: The Civil Litigation That Replaced the Inquiry
In the absence of Leveson Part 2, accountability for historic phone hacking at News International, Mirror Group Newspapers, and Reach plc has been pursued through civil litigation. By October 2026, News UK — formerly News International — had settled more than 1,600 civil claims relating to phone hacking and unlawful information gathering, at a total estimated cost exceeding £1.1 billion. Mirror Group Newspapers settled approximately 800 claims for a disclosed £60 million following the 2023 High Court judgment in the Prince Harry case, in which Mr Justice Fancourt found that senior MGN executives had been aware of and had approved unlawful activities.
Reach plc, publisher of the Daily Mirror and Daily Express, has faced approximately 1,200 active claims. The company disclosed in its 2025 annual report that its provision for civil claims stood at £140 million, which analysts have described as potentially inadequate.
Press Regulation: IPSO’s Contested Record
IPSO, the industry-funded regulator established as an alternative to the Royal Charter-backed IMPRESS following Leveson Part 1, currently covers approximately 1,500 publications. It has faced persistent criticism from Hacked Off and from victims of press misconduct for the limited remedies it can impose: fines are capped at £1 million but have never reached that level, and the regulator cannot compel front-page corrections.
The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the Justice Select Committee, and the DCMS Lords Committee have each, in separate 2026 inquiries, recommended a review of press regulation effectiveness. All three have stopped short of calling for Leveson Part 2 to be reinstated; all three have noted that the conditions that prompted Leveson — unlawful information gathering, police payments, political relationships — have not been comprehensively examined in any public forum.