The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPs
victims under the law, are put into the public domain lawful yand
the public interest justification is included in the Code to cover
these
If. for example, a court ordered that the legal ban on naming a
child defendant convicted of a sex offence could -- because of
the extreme seriousness of the offence -- be lifted, then It wouid
be legitimately in the public domain and there would be a euolic
interest in 3ublicetion
Also, there nave been occasions where technical victims of a
sexual offence, such as uneer-age mothers in a consensual
relationship, have put themselves into the public eomam, to
discuss their problems with the approval of their parents or
guardians. This t~as happened in stories concerning teenage
~regnancies, abortions and parenthood where exameles of cases
can assist in developing public policy
Legitimate identification: in one Northern town identified as
having Europe’s highest incidence of under-age mothers, several
girls told their stories to national newspapers -- some in return for
payment -- with earental consent. No comelainta were received
by the PCC.
if the identification ,q these circumstances mat with the Code’s
other restrictions -- such as being approved by parents and, if
payment was involved, being clearly in the child’s interest- then
it would be legitimate.
A man v News of the World (Resort 34, 1996 -- see note in
margin),
COuld the report lead to the identification of a child it,
the case, including a ~efendant?
L
he Code ~s at its strictest when protecting vulnerable groups,
Tand never more so than when dealing with patients in hospital
or similar institutions. The clause on hospitals is rigorously enforced
and the PCC has warned that it will take a harsh view of any
unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of those who are ill. This
tough line has resulted m very few breaches,
The requ rement onjournallsts to identify themselves and obtain
permission from a responsible executive to enter non-public areas
applies to a// editorial ata~ including 3hotographers. Both the
hospital staff. The PCC ruled that while he acted in good faith and
that coverage of a terror incident included victims, the satlent’s wellbeing
was paramount. It was not enough for the journalist to assume
hie identity was known or to rely on the comment of an individual
who was ctearly not a responsible executive. The complaint was
As this clause covers the news-gathering process, a breach can
occur even if nothing is published as a result
In 2002, a reporter who went to the hospital bedside of the victim
of a car accident, without identi’-yqng himself to the relevant
authorities, was quickly sacked by his newspaper, which recognised
that the Code had been breached. Although the editor apotogised to
the complainant and no story was publ~sheCi, the newsuauer was
rebuked for a serious breach of the Code. J,~,tff~p, gs vEas~{;u~,~h~J
Nan-public areas: In most cases, what constitutes a non-public
area would be clear ann would certainly include areas where
pat ants were race v ng treatment But what if the hasp tel itself is
not open to the public~
identification and the permission need t( be Clear y establ shed
A private hospital, which the singer Pete Doherty had been
ordered by a court to attend, complained that a reporter broke the
A journalist, who attended a Landor hasp ta after the Canary rues by go ag nto the grounds and report ng to the recept on desk
Wharf terrorist bomb attack, photograpi =d an injured victim in the which was a non-public area,
company of relatives who he thought ha~ obtained permission from Bat the PCC ruled that as the security gate was unmanned, and
@ Cases
adjudicated
before 1996
are available
~n nard-copy
format from
the PCC on
application to
Tonia Milton
Informa[~r
and Events
Manage£ o£
26
MAD100036601