The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPs
Private health details of public figures, or their families, are Public servants, including politicians, are also entitled to privacygenerally
protected under the Code unless there is some public although they are inevitably subject to extra scrutiny in the public
interest in revealing them -- such as when they m~ght significantly interest. The PCC upheld a complaint about the story of a wife who
affect the performance of a senior politician. But when e Sunday left her husband for a relationship with a policewoman, The fact that
newspaper raveated specific health details of Government Minister the WPc was e public servant was not sufficient grounds for
David Miliband’s wife. in a story discussing their adoption of a child,
the PCC judged itfe be highly intrusive. Such details should not have
intrusion Ch~t~ v ’/3hE Srmtt~sh Sun: Rcr~r;.r; 4b. !~.9~J
been oublished, it said, without explicit consent or some convincing Royal Family: There ~s a delicate balancing act between the
public interest reason, It was a serious breach of the Code. f~v~lib~nd fulfilment of the Royal Family’s public role and their private ives. But
77~. Mail or, ~,ur~d~y Rep~ 69 20d5~ ¯
’ while they ere not entitled to any special provision, they are entitled
to the protection of the Code. The PCC issued a g~idar/ce not~ on
the Royal Princes, particularly protecting them from unnecessary
Famous or nfamous? The ru as that protect the famous from ........
intrusion dunng them brae at school. Pictures of Prince Wdham h~k~ng
unjustified intrusions nto privacy reply equally to the nfamous Even and crossing a river eunng -’ a gap-year - vls~ ’ " to ~.n ~= e were "e . d °o [
rioter ous cr m nas do not automat ca y forte t the r r ghts under the b tea c b hoth p r vac and y harassment re es
Code The judgment asevec ’ is whether publication would be nthe T~.= /~ ~.~ Dr-r- con~ ,~n~,~ ....... ~,’ pu~,lc ~nn ........ ~nrl ~h= ~.~ n==r~ ~. ...... ~f==nt n.r~.~" ~.u.~u~
public interest, involved. "The ability of all young people to go about their lives
SO when Peter Coonan -- formerly Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire without physical intimidation is hugely important." ~Pr~’~: A~fl;~m v
Ripper -- complained about publication of a private telephone
conversation secretly taped from Broadmoor Special Hespital, where
OK M~9~z~t-~- ,~:~,’>r~ 52 2000i
he was a patient, the PCC had to judge whether his rights had been
breached,
~: ~ ~.~ ~’~’~’~ ~r’ ~O~
~
The Commission decided that, as a result of Coonan’s climes,
his criminal career, medical condition and the circumstances of his
treatment and detention were properly matters for public scrutiny
end discussion. And, although the conversation -- run by the News
of the World as the Ripper Tapes -- referred to his menta state.
medical condition and treatment, the information was not particularly
revealing, much of it was already in the public domain and it was not
sufficiently private to be protected under the Code. The PCC
rejected both the privacy complaint and another that the taping of
the conversation had breached the Code’s prows=ens on the use of
clandestine listening devices. (Co!’/,~r~ v ~,~,~ws o~ ~,b~- ~/or~O: ~?~ ~u~
z 20D7
In response to a camp aint from Sir Paul McCartney, the PCC
decided that Notre Dame cathedral, although e great public
monument thronged with tourists, was also a private place for a
person at prayer tt deprecated the publication of 3icturas =n Hello!
magazine showing Sir Paul praying ins=de the cathedral soon after
his wife’s death. While not privately owned, the cathedral was dearly
a place where a person would have a reasonable expectation of
privacy ,~uC~r~r~,,.,/~://o; F::~;,,d ~, ~,~
Holiday pictures: When supermodel EIle Macpherson was taking
her family on holiday, she chose a private villa on the private island
of Mustique, whict" has no public oseches, and therefore provided a
reasonable expectation of privacy for her children So when a
celebrity magazine pub!Jshed shots of the family relaxing, her
comp{aint to the PCC was upheld. (M~c’pnr.~r.’~on v H~l/o~: Fq~ ~o.~ 7z
POD7
However the PCC Oecloeo that, in the mloole of summon a
PubliCly accessible Ma]orcan beacn overlooked by holiday
apartments was not a elace where newsraadar Anna Ford and her
partner might reasonably expect privacy as they relaxed in their
sw=mwear t also said eublicatior of the pictures did not show
disrespect for her orivata life. The adjudication was challengeo on
judicial review, but upheld by the Divisional Court. F~rd/Sco~ v D~f~3
Mail ©K~ h;agaz~ e: 1-~4~orf 52, 20U.
A crowded beach ~s one thing, a quiet tearoom in Dorking,
The Prince William pictures, in the PCC’s view, clearly breached the
rule that photographs should not be taken without consent in a
private place where the individual has a reasonable expectation of
privacy. Mid-river in a South American wilderness was an example
of just such a private place In fact, the elements that contribute to
a reasonable expectation of pdvacy have been det~nsefed in a series
of Commission rulings, Before publication, editors must decide:
Was the person photographed out of the public view-- not visible
or identifiable with the naked eye to someone in a publtc place?
Was he or she engaged in a private activity at the time ?
if the answer to either question is Yes, there ere serious risks
that the pictures could breach the Cede.
making a large withdrawal. So= when it d~ Mr Kisby complained that
it was an intrusion on his privacy that could have led to security
problems for him and his family
The magazine argued that the cashier was the public face of the
bank and could not expect his identity to be concealed, However, the
PCC ruled that publishing a photograph of a 3erson, without
consent, at his workplace was in this instance a clear breach of the
Code. u.!~rJ~ ,, L ~ad~,a ?~,euor 7! 2~;~;
Public or private space? While the interiors of publicly accessible
ouildings such as cathedrals, cafes, banks or offices can constitute
a private place within the Code. the exterior of a person’s own home
may not always do so.
Mrs Gait Sheridan, the h~gn-prefile wife of a erominent Scottish
o(~ itician, objected to a tabloid newsuaper’s photograpn, taken with
a ~ong lens, of her in her back garoen. She claimed she had a
reasonable e×uectation of unvacy The newspaper o~sagreeo. It sa~d
Mrs Sheridan was a public figure, standing on her onveway, visible
from the street -- even without a tong lens camera -- and was not
engaged in any private activity, other than holding her keys
The PCC, in an adjudication pulling together many of the factors
uuon wmcn such issues hinge, said that had Mrs Sheridan been
another. A diner comulained that a picture of him tucking into a hidden from view in an enclosed back garden, she might have been
butterscotch tart was taken without consent ano usen ~n a uretactad. But here she was clearly visible from the street ano
newspaper. The PCC sad customers should reasonably expect to sit eneased in an innocuous activity
nside a quiet caf~ without hay ng ta worry about surrapt t ous
photographs being taken and published in newspapers, (Tur~btTdcTe ~
....... ~ ........
v b~orKmg Aov÷r’~ser; t~epor~ e~, zuu2).
Similarly, bank cashier Mark Kisby did not expect his photograph
~-_" ......... ~" .....
Ine TaCt mat me pno[ograpn was taken Wl][B S long ~ans was
immater el: what was important was not the means by which the
picture was taken but that she was identifiable to ordinary passersto
appear, Without consent, in a men’s magazine simply because he by The complaint was not upheld, f~heridan v S,~ot~Jsh Sum Re~ort
was snaeeed while serving a ’lottery out’ millionaire who was 75 2007).
MAD100036634
59