Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Channel 4—Written evidence
The practices have been developed over many years (having originated under the legacy
regulators ITC, BSC and BCC, and now Ofcom) and through a process of consultation with
broadcasters and stakeholder groups. The introduction of the Human Rights Act in 1998
(“HRA”) has had the most significant impact on this section of the Ofcom Code. The
current Code has been drafted in the light of the HRA and European Convention on Human
Rights (“the Convention”). It expressly recognises Article 8 rights regarding a person’s right
to privacy in respect of their private and family life, home and correspondence. Equally it
recognises the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the convention, which
encompasses the audience’s right to receive creative material, information and ideas without
interference but subject to restrictions prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic
society.
By way of example, the practices to be followed for surreptitious filming under Practice 8.13
and 8.14 provide an effective balancing of these two Convention rights. The Code sets
down the criteria that must be met for the prior authorisation of covert filming or
recording (“1st stage permission”) and secondary authorisation for the material recorded to
be broadcast (“2nd stage permission”). In addition, Channel 4 has its own written
procedures in place which complement and augment Ofcom’s procedures. These are strictly
adhered to ensure that any potential infringement of privacy is warranted and in the public
interest.
2. How effective has Ofcom been in dealing with breaches of the Ofcom Broadcasting
Code in relation to breaches of privacy?
In Channel 4’s view, Ofcom has been effective in dealing with breaches of the Code in
relation to Section 8. Privacy complaints are often made in connection with Fairness
complaints under Section 7 of the Code and Ofcom has been effective in dealing with
privacy complaints which are effectively fairness complaints. Whilst upheld privacy
complaints against Channel 4 are relatively uncommon, we are not complacent and take
great care to ensure that any infringement is warranted under the Code and our own
internal procedures. As a responsible Public Service Broadcaster we take very seriously our
obligations to comply with the Code and in particular with the sensitive issue of an
individual’s privacy.
Whilst the stringent procedures which Channel 4 has in place generally avoid any breaches
of privacy in respect of intentional intrusions into privacy—e.g. surreptitious filming or
recording—the most common concern about potential breaches of privacy are likely to be
in unintentional circumstances e.g.—filming in a public place. In such cases there is often a
misunderstanding by individuals as to whether or not they have a legitimate expectation of
privacy.
Ofcom’s view that such complaints can be resolved informally with the complainant has
often been effective in allowing amicable resolution. This informal process between the
parties without the need to engage Ofcom’s formal complaints procedures is a cost effective
and proportionate way of dealing with such privacy complaints.
3. Is there a case that the rules on infringement of privacy should be applied equally
across all media content?
156