The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Publications are required by the Code in sub-clause 1iv to report For Distribution to CPs fairly and accurately the outcome of a case for defamation to which they had been party -- unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published. This is intended to ensure that newspapers set the record straight in their own pages, tt covers only the outcome of the case and puts no onus on editors to run ongoing reports of the action -- although they may choose to do so. A case where a man who successfully sued The Guardian went on to complain that the paper had not run balanced reports of the trial (£im,~.an~Co ,v 7he G,~a~fan Report#6 19981wasrejected by the PCC. The Code refers only to the outcome of the case an agreement from being guilty of a technical breach. That happened in 1999, When a magazine did not report the
Priv shot phol rul~ sex the For Distribution to CPs ~rivacy is always a hot issue. Complaints about intrusion account ~for a auarter of the PCC’s cases, and cover the whole spectrum of national and regional newspapers and magazines in almost eaual proportion .... This reflects the genuine and w~aespreaa conflict over wnere legitimate public exposure ends and Dublts prurience aegina. When dealing with pubfic figures there can be a further dimension: now mucn ~s this prunenca encouraged by ca]ebnties themsefves? There Is no deflnit{ve answer to these auestions, it is a matter of balance ann judgment according to all the circumstances. The Code attempts to embrace that and manage the conflicts in Clause 3, by two means. First, in setting out the zones of pdvacy, it echoes the language of L ~.’ the Human R=ghts ACt -- the entitlement to rsspect for private and family li~, home, hsalth and correspondence. In June 2004, the Code added to this digital communicatlons, thus undenmmg Clause 10’s stncturas on the use of bugging devices. Second, the Code’s Dan on intrusive photography makes clear that consent would be needed to take pictures of individuals on public or p~te preperty where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy The panel This attempts to protect individuals by tntroducmg a test of what co]our code was reasonable, with each case judged on ~ts merits the flna ~ What the arbiter of which would be the PCC with its lay rnajorlty As this clause Code says offers the possibifity of a public interest defenca, that too is often Key factored into the equation, oues~ons The wide discretion the clause gives to the PCC makes its ea~[orsneea to ~s} decisions vital in influencing editorial judgments and setting public themselves when Code expectations of the press. Among the guiding principles it considers ssues anse n reaching those decisions: ~ Briefings ¯ . . . on specific Prtvacy =a ~o~ an abael~e r~g~t -- ~t can be compromised by areaswhem conduct or consent, For example, when considering complaints theCode applies of alleged intrus=ons, the PCC has traditionally had regard for any relevant previous disclosures by the cornpIainant. Since October 2009, that has been codified in Clause 3ii, which states: "Account will be taken of the complainant’s own public disclosures of information. ° Privacy is n~t a ~mrno~ity which can be sold on one person’s MOD100036632 57
Page 1 and 2:
For Distribution to CPs EDITORS’
Page 3 and 4: emind us that there is never room f
Page 5 and 6: =’~he Preamble is the key to unde
Page 7 and 8: ! !~’ ij ¸ For Distribution to C
Page 9 and 10: thai they were token during the occ
Page 11 and 12: For Distribution to CPs OF D £~FA~
Page 13 and 14: For Distribution to CPs terms -- th
Page 15 and 16: For Distribution to CPs ~ ~L~ ~L~C
Page 17 and 18: For Distribution to CPs Dunblane, O
Page 19 and 20: For Distribution to CPs tn a simila
Page 21 and 22: hi~{~~ ’~ ~e~t ~ For Distribution
Page 23 and 24: For Distribution to CPs A magazine
Page 25 and 26: For Distribution to CPs the reporte
Page 27 and 28: For Distribution to CPs ~ onsiderat
Page 29 and 30: The use some ma al f journalist’
Page 31 and 32: Perso~sa~ an~ ~s~e~udicec~ For Dist
Page 33 and 34: For Distribution to CPs t is notabl
Page 35 and 36: ! mUI~ii ! late I ! fret: eli I ali
Page 37 and 38: For Distribution to CPs Was a criro
Page 39 and 40: For Distribution to CPs uNic~tien o
Page 41 and 42: The P/ pubtial saarct" da~e o Th~ r
Page 43 and 44: Relatives bereaved, 33, 37 of peopl
Page 45 and 46: CQ ~ten~s E.di~ors" ?ode I F’fat;
Page 47 and 48: For Distribution to CPs major polic
Page 49 and 50: For Distribution to CPs aeequate, b
Page 51 and 52: Hate likely complainants been given
Page 53: For Distribution to CPs delay, affe
Page 57 and 58: For Distribution to CPs Private hea
Page 59 and 60: For Distribution to CPs AA&rd v M~n
Page 61 and 62: For Distribution to CPs i~! ~ Kimbl
Page 63 and 64: For Distribution to CPs the riskof
Page 65 and 66: For Distribution to CPs to bs dons,
Page 67 and 68: For Distribution to CPs victims und
Page 69 and 70: Gudt s~ 8ssoc~aUon For Distribution
Page 71 and 72: For Distribution to CPs deception a
Page 73 and 74: For Distribution to CPs ~ reservati
Page 75 and 76: For Distribution to CPs Id normally
Page 77 and 78: For Distribution to CPs upheld. ,~
Page 79 and 80: notification to the prosecution for
Page 81 and 82: For Distribution to CPs need to dem
Page 83 and 84: i) The Press must take care not to
Page 85 and 86: ~ ~ ~ CLICK ON A PAGE NUMBER TO FIN
show all

The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?