BOTH your editorial of December 8 and the article by the chief executive of Newsquest in that issue, are mild understatements of the existential threat posed to Press freedom by the proposed Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

This would allow that any newspaper that fails to submit to control by some government-backed regulator could be faced with paying the costs of an action brought by a claimant even when his claim is not upheld by the court.

A free Press is a vital part of any free and democratic society.

Should it be determined that a claimant has been harmed, unjustifiably, by the actions of a newspaper then the law as it stands provides adequately for redress and remedy.

This utterly obnoxious provision would mean that a newspaper, having successfully defended an action, could still have to pay the claimant’s costs.

It would usher in a reluctance to report dishonesty and hypocrisy by such as expenses-fiddling MPs.

Whenever we put constraints upon the Press we help the powerful to get away with misdeeds.

This proposal is an affront to our tradition of fairness in litigation and should be opposed by all right thinking members of the public.

I urge everyone to write to presspolicy@culture.gov.uk objecting strongly to it, as I have done.

Anthony Warburton

Malvern