Cumnock Media

Leveson

Christopher Jefferies is the sort of man who owns two copies of Tolstoy’s War and Peace. They sit together somewhere in the middle of a huge wall of books that takes up one side of his study.

Before the shelves is his antique desk with everything in its place: stamps, a magnifying glass, a printer and an article on French tax. There are signs that Jefferies, 67, who lives in the Bristol suburb of Clifton, was recently delayed by rail company First Great Western. A compensation form awaits completion.

But then Jefferies has been a busy man, not just recently, he says, but ever since his ordered life was violently thrown into disarray two years ago by press reporting that was described as “vilification” by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, as a “monstering” by his solicitors and, in his own words at the Leveson inquiry into media practices, as a “mixture of smear, innuendo and complete fiction”.

On New Year’s Eve 2010, the day after Jefferies was erroneously arrested on suspicion of the murder of 25-year-old Joanna Yeates, a tenant in the building he still lives in and owns, and from where he talks today, the Sun reported its take on “The strange Mr Jefferies”. Similarly, the Daily Mail splashed with “Murder police quiz ‘nutty professor’ with a blue rinse” and the Daily Mirror told its 1.2 million readers: “Jo suspect is Peeping Tom”. The stories in the Sun and the Daily Mirror explained how the retired English literature teacher scared children and was obsessed with death; one paper, in the words of the Leveson counsel, Robert Jay, linked him with a past murder and a paedophile.

Jefferies knew nothing of the vilification at the time because it occurred while he was in a police cell waiting to be exonerated. Another tenant of Jefferies, Vincent Tabak, was arrested a few weeks later and has since been sentenced to life for murder.

Jefferies only learned of his treatment as he was being driven away from the police station and told his lawyer that he wanted redress against the police. He has since successfully sued eight national papers, is in line to settle a suit against the police, and is one of the key participants in the Hacked Off campaign group seeking reform. Jefferies’s last interview in his study was conducted by perhaps its most visible activist, Hugh Grant, for the Hollywood actor’s documentary on the media, which will be screened the night before the Leveson report is released.

Jefferies has received considerable financial compensation. Richard Wallace, then editor of the Daily Mirror, told the Leveson inquiry that he regarded the treatment meted out to Jefferies as a black mark on his career as a journalist. “I give him some credit for that,” says Jefferies. “I have not had a letter of apology from any of the editors, any of the journalists. The editor of the Scotsman described it as a mistake. He didn’t elaborate,” he says holding his stare.

Indeed, while Jefferies is amiable, personable and quick to smile, there is a quiet anger about him as he speaks out just days before the publication of Lord Justice Leveson’s report on Thursday. There has been some talk that the prime minister will not wholly accept Leveson’s proposals, which would be particularly egregious should the high court judge include a recommendation for a new independent body to be legally enshrined, able to deal with the newspapers using the full weight of the law. The industry, and many others, complain that Leveson doesn’t understand freedom of speech and a law will open the doors to political meddling in the media.

Jefferies disagrees. Vehemently. He says that while he only dipped in and out of watching the Leveson sessions, he was pleased by the way in which the inquiry operated. He had no doubts about giving evidence himself. “This was part of the fight back against the defamation I was subjected to and it was, I suppose, a chance to underline how hideous the process was but also to show people how I was, rather than how I was depicted by some parts of the press,” he says.

And he is clear: the idea that David Cameron, having set up the Leveson inquiry, should now pick and choose from its recommendations, is “dangerous”. Visibly agitated by the idea that the current system of self-regulation can continue, he adds: “Many people say celebrities live by publicity and if they get the wrong sort they can’t be entirely surprised, but what one is concerned by is when innocent people are traduced by the media.

“One of the things I was particularly interested in was the evidence of Richard Peppiatt, the ex-Daily Star reporter, and the stories he was able to tell, the pressures that were put on him to write certain things the paper wanted. I was rather surprised. I have not had much time for that end of the journalistic market place but I was rather shocked, despite what happened to me. I think it was because of the sort of thing he was saying about the racism of the stories he was putting out, simply to pander to an extreme end of public opinion.

“The papers had some grounds for thinking there was a possibility that I had committed murder, simply because I had been arrested on suspicion of murder. But to effect, in a rather calculated way, to whip up a campaign against a whole section of the population that is vulnerable, is truly shocking.”

Jefferies has listened to Lord Hunt, the current head of the Press Complaints Commission, who came to tell him about his ideas for a new regulatory regime, but one that was not backed by law. He is utterly unconvinced. And he believes Leveson will be, too. The new regime will only have the respect of the newspapers, and remain undiluted over time, if it is enshrined in law, he says.

He had to seek redress from the courts, Jefferies says, but in future a proactive regulatory body would make newspapers think twice before they act, he insists. His argument is that a statutory regime will inculcate a culture that is not meek but actually has more self-respect. And he predicts trouble if Cameron does not see that. “It is going to be very, very difficult for someone who set up that inquiry – because it had to be independent of politicians – to then say, ‘Oh well, I think I prefer this,’ or, ‘Let’s have another look at the Hunt proposals’.

“Given that there appears to be a parliamentary majority in favour of implementing the Leveson proposals, I think not to accept the findings is going to put [Cameron] in an almost impossible position, politically and in the country at large.”

One suspects that the tardy train driver at First Great Western should also watch out.