A NEW law could prevent newspapers from reporting on wrongdoing without running the risk of huge legal bills - and may undermine the freedom of the press. But with your help, we can fight it.

IT is almost unthinkable - and certainly has no place in a society which prides itself on democracy and freedom of speech.

A monster is lurking in the shadows - and it may soon be there for all to see, bringing with it an end to the ability of news organisations to expose corruption and wrongdoing.

A new law which was passed by parliament in 2013, but hasn’t yet been brought into force, threatens in effect to fine newspapers who hold those who have power and responsibility to account.

If it is introduced, it could end your right to know what is happening in your name, and with your money. It could stop the media running reports about misuse of public funds, incompetence in authorities, miscarriages of justice or criminal activity.

It is Section 40 of The Crimes and Courts Act.

It is a small and obscure section of the act, but its effects could be huge and wide-ranging - and here's why.

It is a long-standing tradition in English law that if someone were to sue a newspaper for libel or invasion of privacy, then the losing side would have to pay the cost of the lawyers on both sides. Rightly so.

But under Section 40, if an individual sues a newspaper for defamation or invasion of privacy – and even if a court ruled that the newspaper was telling the truth or that the intrusion was in the public interest – the news organisation would still have to pay both sets of legal costs.

Legal bills can run into the millions of pounds. For many companies, especially local ones like the Hexham Courant, those costs could be disastrous.

The only way a news organisation can avoid this threat is if it agrees to be governed by an official government regulator, a body called Impress. News outlets are reluctant to sign up to Impress as it means effectively that the government would be controlling the media.

There are lots of examples of cases where newspapers have exposed wrongdoing, have been sued by the wrongdoer and have won.

In 1994 The Guardian exposed how former Conservative MP Neil Hamilton had taken cash from Harrods boss Mohammed Al-Fayed in return for asking parliamentary questions. Hamilton tried to sue The Guardian – but it was proved that the paper was telling the truth.

In 1997 another former Tory MP, Jonathan Aitken, also sued The Guardian for libel. It alleged that his £1,000 hotel bill for staying at the Paris Ritz had been paid by aides of the Saudi royal family, breaking the rules on government ministers accepting gifts. He denied this and sued for libel. But his case collapsed when the allegation was proved true.

A famous case from 1978 was a report in the Daily Mail about the practices of the Unification Church, better known as the Moonies. The paper accused it of brainwashing and breaking up families, was sued by the church and won.

If Section 40 had been in force, then the papers in these cases would have had to pay the legal bills of Hamilton, Aitken or the Moonies, as well as their own bills, even though their claims were true.

Those costs could well have made them stop short of running the stories, and the wrongdoing would have gone unnoticed.

It is not just an issue for the local media, as Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, points out.

He said: "There are countless reports in local and regional newspapers about the misuse of public funds and inefficiencies in local councils, hospitals, the police and other public authorities, as well as private sector organisations such as buses and trains."

The Crimes and Courts Act was brought in after the Leveson Inquiry into the practices of some parts of the media and Mr Satchwell says: “The sanctions were designed to curb what were seen to be the excesses of some national newspapers.

“But the unintended consequence is that all newspapers and magazines will be affected and some may be put out of business. They could face the crippling costs of legal actions even if they win cases in courts by proving they had printed the truth.”

The vast majority of newspaper and magazines, including the Evening Mail and its sister titles in CN Group, belong to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, or IPSO.

It is an independent body, financed by the newspapers and not the taxpayer, and has a code of conduct all member publications have to abide by.

Colin Tapping, editor of the Hexham Courant, said: "As a local news organisation we exist for many reasons, but one of the most important is that we are in a position to hold those in authority or the public eye to account, and expose wrongdoing where it exists.

"We only ever publish information based on fact. But if an individual were to make a claim against us, which we ultimately had to defend in court, the implications would be grave, even if the court found in our favour.

"Because if we won, we would ultimately lose due to the court costs we would have to pay. That cannot be acceptable in a society which is envied the world over for its democracy - or in any society for that matter.

“Introducing Section 40 is also a danger to that democracy. Any dodgy businessman or official wanting to hush up an investigation into his affairs knows that he has nothing to lose by taking a newspaper to court.

“If newspapers stop these investigations because they can’t take the risk, then who will provide that service for society? It won’t be Facebook or Twitter.”

Mr Satchwell feels that Impress will not be up to the job either. “Impress is an ‘approved’ regulator, under a Royal Charter imposed on the press,” he warns. “It is the first step towards political control of the press.

“Parliament could easily translate the Royal Charter into full state regulation of the press.”

Index on Censorship campaigns for freedom of expression and produces a quarterly magazine. Its chief executive Jodie Ginsberg says: “We won’t sign up to a regulator that has been set up by a state-created body.

“We think Section 40 jeopardises press freedom. We publish writers and artists who would face censorship elsewhere.

“We are a very small organisation, and if we were in a legal dispute and had to pay the legal costs of both sides – even if what we printed was true and in the public interest – we could end up out of business very quickly.”

Can anything be done to stop Section 40? The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is running a consultation on the plans to bring the section into force. It will close at 5pm on Tuesday.

Mr Satchwell added: “They will take notice of the public who realise they may be prevented from finding out about corruption and other misuse of taxpayers’ money.

"They need to hear from people who are concerned about their right to know and are worried about the future of their favourite local papers.”

Anyone who wants to comment can go to www.freethepress.co.uk and complete the form, or e-mail presspolicy@culture.gov.uk