you write to mr. dakor. you say we're not proposing to criminalize any conduct which is not currently against the law. however, we do understand you and the media's concerns about more generally the introduction of custodial sentences for of section 55. we have no wish to curtail legitimate and responsible journalism. and when the proposed balances were being designed, it was not considered they would have that effect. we are not aware paragraph 55 has caused any problems. this is a chilling effect since the dpa came into force. the balances were proposed and strongly argued for by the information commissioner to strengthen the protection of individuals' rights, to respect for their privacy. and then if i can look six lines into the next paragraph, but i have reviewed the proposals in the light of the important points which you and others have made. as i explained when we met, i was increasingly minded to consider inclusion of provision for the reasonable belief of someone at the time the offense was committ

you write to mr. dakor. you say we're not proposing to criminalize any conduct which is not currently against the law. however, we do understand you and the media's concerns about

brooks and mr. dakor saw you, not merely was the gpa discussed but also cfas. we can see the views that you held on that matter on the second page of the letter of the 12th of february. in a nutshell, what were your views about cfas in media privacy cases in particular, and were you succumbing to press pressure about it? >> first of all, my views about cfas generally was they had not worked as intended, and that was why this preceded this. there were already discussions with the senior judiciary about establishing what became the review by lord justice jackson. i think that was slightly later but it was certainly in the year. on cfas, i received a lot of representations, actually from the regional and local press, rather more than the national press, about the effect on the finances of the regional and local press of the way cfas were operating, and i recall a case which affected not my own local newspaper, which is the telegraph but the adjacent one where for a very minor defamation where i think the payout was 3,000 pounds, and even that really wasn't justifi