The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPs
E~nvacy is always a hot issue. Complaints about intrusion account
~for a quarter of the PCC’s cases, and cover the whole spectrurr
of national and regional newsPaders and magazines in almost equal
proeortiot7
This reflects the genuine and widespread conflict over where
legitimate public exposure ends and public prunenca Degas. When
dealing with public figures, there can De a further dimension: how
much is this orunenca encouraged by celebrities themselves? There
rights on either side --- whether they be reasonable or otherwise -could
be counter-productive and raise false expectations. The Code
definition refes on what is raasonable in the CircumstanCes; which is
~eoide~ by the Pcc.
i Samil fi-f~tai i Eienii! ,Siiiiir/(fei=~d: 72~ 2[05~,
the Human Rights Act -- the entitlement to respect for private end
famtiylife, home, hea.e.h end correspondence. In June 2004 the Code
added to this digita communications, thus underlining Clause 10’s
stnc~ures on the use of bugging devices
Second, the Cede’s ban on intrusive photography makes clear
~hat consent would De needed to take uictures of individuals on
public or pdvate property where there is a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
is no definitive answer to these questions. It is a matter of balance This attempts to erotect individuals ay introducing a test of what
and judgment according to all the circumstances. The Code attempts was reasonaole, with each case judged on its merits -- the final
to embrace that and manage the conflicts in Clause 3, by two means. arbiter of which would be ~he POC with its lay majority. As this clause
First, in setting out the zones of privacy, it echoes the language of offers the possibility of a pubic interest defenca, that too Js often
. Privacy is ~et an absolute right -- it can be compromised by
conduct or consent. For example, when considering complaints
of alleged intrusions, the PCC has traditionaly had regard for any
relevant previous disclosures by the complainant. Since October
2009, that has been codified in Clause 3i, which states: ~ccaunt
will be taken of the complainant’s own public disclosures of
information."
Privacy is ~et a ceraraedity which can be sold on one person’s
Tie panel
ceiour code
~ Wna~ me
Code says
;~. Key
factored into the equation, coast=one
The wide discretion the clause gives to the PCC makes ts
aolrorsneeo
Io ask
decisions vital in influencing editorial judgments end setting pubtic themselves
wnen Code
expectations of the press. Among the guiding principles it considers
ssues arise
n reaching those decisions;
~ Briefings
on specific
areas where
[he Cads
MOD100036589
14