The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPs
uNic~tien or j0urnNiatic activ!ty
,at~ The ~CC wou~d raquir~ a ~U~!
were genuine an~ sound in the
~, har.sement or payr.~ntS to
:l= ¢oal~ the information have been
nein, or liP4.’ly to become SO?
i¢ interest in publication
cautier punishing images of peopte receiving
was l{nown, or her family told, the PCC ruled that there was
insufficient public interest to override her privacy
However, the newspaper’s speedy action in taking down the
materiel and epotogising, Was a proportionate remedy i’£h’ktand v
,¢’tt~SH’e ®azt~t ~ Report 77 20{)8~
Upholding freedom of e~pression: Council officers using e 15year-old
boy In an uneercover’sting’ operation to curd alcohol sales
to uneerage customers complained when an angry shopkeeper’s
CCTV image of him appeared in a local paper. They claimed this
in~nged his privacy and rights as a child under the Code. But the
shopkeeper whose staff sold the boy alcohol, wanted to
eemonstrate publicly that he looked at least 18
The PCC rejected the complaint. It said that the boy’s welfare
wasn’t involved and the story of possible entrapment rested entirely
on his physical appearance.
To have found that the picture breached the Code would have
Newspaper and Nagazine Publishing in the UK
Editors’ Code of Practice 2887
interfered with the shopkeeper’s ability to conduct his arguments
freely in public -- and could have been incompatible with his rights
to free expresa~on. Camwa// County C6 Jnd, v The Pecket
F~lmc~uth: Reporl 74, 2057).
Could the information have been obtained by ether means? A
key test of the validity of the public interest defence is whether the
information could have been obtained without intrusion or other
breach. This applies particularly m cases involving clandestine
listening dewces= subterfuge, harassment, or payments to witnesses
or criminals
The Press Complaints Commission is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice which was framed
by the newspaper end periodical industry and was ratified by the PCC on 13 .tune 2007 to include changes which
took effect from 1 August 2007.
A~I members of the press have a duty to maintain the
highest professional standards, The Code, which
includes this ,£ea~b~e and the public interest
exceptions belo~; sets the benchmark for those ethice~
standards, protecting both the rights of the individual
end the public% ri#ht to know. it is the cornerstone of
the system of self-regulation to which the industry has
made e binding commitment.
interference with freedom of expression or prevents
publication in the public interest,
Bt is the responsibility of e~itors and publishers to apply
the Code to editorial materiel in both printed and online
versions of publications. They should take care to
ensure it is observed rigorously by ell editorial staff
and ezterne! contributors, including non-journalists, in
printed end online versions of publications,
it is essential that an agreed code be nonoured not only Editors should co-operate swiftly with the PCC in the
to the letter but in the full spirit, it should not be
resolution of complaints. Any publication judged to
interpreted so narrowly as to compromise its have breached the Code must print the adjudication in
commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor full end with due prominence, including headline
so broadly that it constitutes an unnecessary
reference to the PCC.
MOD100036616
41