I am beginning to know how Alice in Wonderland felt during her trial as she argued with the Queen who was demanding ‘sentence first – verdict afterwards’.

The Ministry of Justice hasn’t quite got to the sentence in its review of controlling costs in defamation proceedings, but it has clearly delivered the verdict before hearing the evidence. So why, on the very day media lawyers were giving evidence to the Culture, Media and Sports Committee on the level of costs in publication proceedings, did justice minister Bridget Prentice announce that: ‘Excessive costs and their threat may force defendants to settle unwarranted claims. The aim of these proposals is to bring more effective costs control to litigation in defamation proceedings and to ensure that costs in this area are more proportionate and reasonable. We need to ensure that people’s right to freedom of expression is not infringed and media organisations continue to report on matters of public concern’.

The minister’s comment is coupled with the MoJ’s publication of the consultation papers Controlling Costs in Defamation Proceedings and Conditional Fee Agreements in Publication Proceedings. Suggested measures include limiting recoverable hourly rates, mandatory costs capping and a focus on proportionality. The clear presumption from the paper and the minister’s comment is that these matters are not already being adequately dealt with by the courts.

As all of this is going on, final submissions to Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil costs are being gathered. The terms of reference are wide ranging, including a review of how present costs rules operate, the effective case management procedure on costs and a review of conditional fee agreements. Lord Justice Jackson is due to report by the end of this year.

When this review was announced, in November last year, Bridget Prentice welcomed it but conceded that it would not delay specific initiatives that the ministry was currently undertaking on civil costs. After all, why wait for the inconvenience of the evidence from Lord Justice Jackson before taking any action? The minister’s announcement and paper clearly presume there is a fundamental problem with costs in publication proceedings and that they are excessive.

But the only people the minister has received any evidence from before making these pronouncements are in the media. It is only media lawyers who have had access to the minister, whereas solicitors for claimants in publication proceedings have been trying to meet Bridget Prentice for the last two years and have only managed to secure a meeting in the coming months.

As every practitioner knows, the range of hourly rates allowed in publication proceedings, as in any civil proceedings, is assessed by the courts under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules, with any doubt about the reasonableness of work done and recoverability of costs against a paying party being decided in favour of the paying party.

So why is the sophisticated regime of costs assessment administered by specialist cost judges going so spectacularly wrong, according to the media? The truth is that it is not. Publication proceedings are subject to the same intense scrutiny as any other proceedings. If costs are high it is because well-resourced media defendants fight cases vigorously. In the majority of cases, when claimant bills are assessed in publication proceedings, the courts largely uphold the hourly rate claimed and the time spent.

The media have cried foul and run straight to the MoJ, just as Paul Dacre has done while attacking Mr Justice Eady’s judgment in the Max Mosley case. It is easier to lobby government to change a law you do not like than to use the existing rules to achieve one’s ends.

The apparent willingness of the MoJ to make a decision before all the evidence is received smacks of a desperate and unpopular government appeasing a powerful and politically influential press.

Sarah Webb is head of the media and reputation management department at Russell Jones & Walker