Newspaper publishers intend to appeal against a High Court rejection earlier today of their bid to block a new cross-party royal charter to regulate the press. A spokesperson said:
We are deeply disappointed with this decision, which denies the newspaper and magazine industry the right properly to make their case that the Privy Council's decision to reject their charter was unfair and unlawful.
This is a vital constitutional issue and we will be taking our case for judicial review - of the Privy Council's decisions on both the industry charter and the cross-party charter - to the Court of Appeal.
Newspaper and magazine publishers have been refused an urgent injunction to stop ministers going to the Privy Council to seek the Queen's approval for a cross-party royal charter to regulate the press.
All three political parties back Parliament's Royal Charter for press regulation, but it is bitterly opposed by much of the industry.
Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, along with two other Court of Appeal judges, refused to grant an interim order pending further legal action.
I have considered this request with Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Justice Elias.
We are not willing to grant interim relief 'administratively' pending an application for permission to appeal.
Newspaper and magazine publishers have been refused an injunction to stop ministers going to the Privy Council later this afternoon to seek the Queen's approval for a cross-party Royal Charter to regulate the press.
A Royal Charter should not be forced up on an industry that "doesn't want it", a media freedom campaigner has said.
The High Court rejected newspaper publishers bid to block a cross-party royal charter to regulate the press.
The executive director of the Society of Editors, Bob Satchwell, said: "This is disappointing and it is a pity the Queen has been brought into controversy. Royal charters are usually granted to those who ask for one - not forced upon an industry or group that doesn't want it."
Publishers confirmed that they will take their case to the Court of Appeal after the defeat at the High Court.
The big newspaper companies like the Murdoch press and the Mail have been in denial ever since the Leveson inquiry report condemned the way they treated ordinary people and told them they needed to change.
The inquiry judge has told them this. Their own readers – the public – have told them. Their past victims have told them. Every single party in Parliament has told them. Now the courts have thrown out their latest manoeuvre.
We have to ask: is there anyone at all that Rupert Murdoch and the other arrogant proprietors will listen to?
The Royal Charter is good for journalism, good for freedom of speech, and – vitally – good for the public. What Mr Murdoch and his friends are clinging to is the right to lie, twist, bully and intrude, inflicting misery on innocent people. That has to stop.
Both the industry and the Government agree self-regulation of the press is the way forward and we both agree that a Royal Charter is the best framework for that.
We are clear the process for considering the industry Royal Charter was robust and fair and the Courts have agreed. We can now get on with implementing the Cross Party Charter.
A Royal Charter will protect freedom of the press whilst offering real redress when mistakes are made.
Importantly, it is the best way of resisting full statutory regulation that others have tried to impose.
Newspaper publishers, who lost their High Court battle to halt Parliament's Royal Charter on press regulation, intend to take their case to the Court of Appeal this afternoon.
Two judges ruled that the press would not be allowed an injunction to stop ministers going to the Privy Council today with plans to seek the Queen's approval for Parliament's Royal Charter.
All three major political parties back Parliament's Royal Charter but it is bitterly opposed by much of the industry.
Newspaper publishers have lost a High Court battle to stop Government ministers going to the Privy Council later today to seek the Queen's approval for a new royal charter to regulate the press.
Newspapers and magazine publishers are seeking a last-minute injunction to stop Parliament's Royal Charter of being approved, but what are the differences between the two rival charters?
The differences between the two are quite subtle - with the press charter giving more power to their industry - but one of the main areas of contention comes from possible changes to the charters.
Parliament's Royal Charter can only be amended if a majority of two-thirds in both houses approve the changes.
However, the press' Royal Charter says amendments can only be made with the "unanimous support" of what is called the 'triple lock' - members of the recognition panel, board of the regulator and boards of all the trade associations.
A low-cost disputes arm that focuses on settling complaints is not compulsory in the press charter but is in Parliament's.
Another difference is that Parliament's model insists the regulator has the power to direct apologies whereas the press industry's charter does not.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the Royal Charter proposed by newspaper and magazine publishers had been considered in "an entirely proper and fair way".
A spokesman said:
The Government is working to bring in a system of independent press self-regulation that will protect press freedom while offering real redress when mistakes are made.