Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Prash Naik, Controller of Legal & Compliance, Channel 4, David Jordan, Director of
Editorial Policy and Standards, BBC, and Valerie Nazareth, Head of Programme Legal
Advice, BBC—Oral evidence (QQ 273–325)
articulate our position very clearly; we do not shy away from telling them why we think it is
a warranted infringement. Obviously, post-transmission they can pursue it. In the vast
majority of cases we are successful because they are infringements of privacy that are
justified.
Q1200 Lord Gold: It is fine if you are responsible in the way you conduct
yourselves, and it may be said that some others are not so responsible. How does one find
the protection then?
Prash Naik: If those who are not responsible are working under our regulatory
framework sanctions will be imposed upon them. They are quite severe financial penalties,
with the potential for revocation and shortening of licences. That will act as the ultimate
deterrent to repetition.
seek?
David Jordan: All of this stems from a clear sense of what the public interest is.
Q1201 Lord Thomas of Gresford: What remedies do people who complain
Prash Naik: It can vary. Quite often, if we are doing undercover filming for example,
individuals want reassurances that they will not be identified. They accept the public interest
justification for the filming but do not wish to be singled out. We are quite sensitive to that
if they are merely incidental; they are junior members of staff and are not senior
management. The assurance they seek is that they will be blurred.
Q1202 Lord Thomas of Gresford: That is before the programme is made.
Prash Naik: Yes.
Q1203 Lord Thomas of Gresford: What about people who complain as a result
of a programme? What do they look for—compensation in money, apologies or what?
Prash Naik: In many cases they are looking for a finding, which will subsequently be
published, that effectively the broadcaster took a decision on the wrong side of the line, and
the infringement was therefore unwarranted. It is not money because no compensation is
offered under the Ofcom scheme. We can be directed not to repeat a programme. Ofcom’s
rules do not apply to our online content, but we voluntarily read across Ofcom’s
procedures to all our online material, so we have a consistent approach. For example, if we
have lost, Ofcom may say that we cannot repeat it. We would have to remove it from our
VOD platform; we would not sell it. There would not be wider distribution of the content if
we lost at that stage.
Q1204 Lord Thomas of Gresford: But you would offer no ex gratia payment as
a result of a complaint?
Prash Naik: No, we would not.
176