The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPs
IE PUILIC IIll’l~ll ~ i
No judgment is more difficult than when weighing the privacy of the
individual against freedom of expression and intrusion in the wider
public interest {Se~ ~;ecfk~n ,3D Public H?~erasO. The two principal
reeuee in making such a judgment are:
Is publication of the private information genuinely in the public
interest? And --
Is the degree of intrusion proportionate to the public interest
served?
The PCC agreed that identifying her house and showing the
interiors In such circumstances without consent involved a eegree
of intrusion way out of proportion to any public interest served by
highlighting the police reid or exposing a specific criminal offence.
’f~-~t:,~le ~/ ~cm’?~oreu~b ~:ven~ ~g p~e~ ReDor~ 77, 200~,
The warmng about the dangers of relying on police invitations to
join such exercises was strongly reinforced when another weekly
newspaper accompanied e raid on a house suspected of having
stolen satellite navigation systems. No stolen goods wore found, nor
Sometimes editors surmount [he first hurdle, only to fall at the charges brought, but the newspaper published interior shots of the
second,
house including a teenager handcuffed in hie bedroom.
There were no such problems in identifying the public interest Although the boy’s face had been pixelated and no exterior
when the then Tory MP Rupert Allaeon’e affair with a married woman pictures of the house were used, the Commission ruled that this was
was splashed in a newspaper He complained that it Was hie private a serious intrusion. It made clear that, as no stolen goods had been
business. But the PCC ruled that as his election literature had led
~
found, there was no public interest in publishing the pictures. (A
onetitaents to believe he was a family man -- an impression that ad not been corrected -- publication was justified A%ason ~* Da~
~,, umats v ~arkJn
d
and Dager;haff~ Y~ecorde~: R~bry~ 78 200£
The PCC also reminded editors that under both the Code end
Mirror. f~el~e,d 37, 1996)
"
current guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers, it is
The Commission also found a public interest in the Evening the media’s responsibility when attending such raids to obtain
Standard naming a council worker who had warned a friend that a permission from the owner to enter the property before doing so.
care-worker woe a paedophile -- but had done nothing to alert the
wider public ~obson v F-vening Standard Reoort 42 IBg
ACPO Guidance says: "Consent should be in a form which is
~
And a convicted drug smuggler’s complaint about a newspaper
capable of proof, i.e. in writing, filmed or taped verbal comment."
which published interior oictures of her home was rejected because Undercover, over the top: The Commission took a similar line about
it was n the public interest to show how she had saent the proceeDs a snatched photograph of Christopher Bourne, dubbed by a regional
of crime. 7b~nson’vPeterf~.orcu~hZ-vP.n;r~7~ie~2t~ph.F~e:;ar~b~.L Sunday paper "the greediest man in Britain". He had bought 30 Xbox
200:~
games consoles so that he could exploit a ore-Christmas shortage
ane auction them at a profit on oBey. After refusing to bepicturee
Attending police raids: By contrail a newscaaer came unstuck qimself, Mr Bourne was secretly photographed when he let his son
when it joined a Dolce Drugs reid on local homes, it eestad a video Dose with the consoles. The picture was uublshed with the headline
clia of one raid.where a small amount of cannabis was found, on its Dad Cashes In On Xbox Mieety
websita and used still eictures in the aacar headlined Drugs And The PCC said that, while the paper was entitled to its strong
Cash Seized in Reid. But the homeowner denied any knowledge of views, there was no evidence of crime or impropriety by Mr Bourne.
the drugs and had not been charged with an offence.
The intrusion into his privacy by photographing him surreptitiously
n his own home was out of proportion to any conceivable public
atarest in Publielling tile picture. The complaint was uone!£1 ~{outf~¢
Sut~d~u n~e~c~ ;~v~:ort 72 2bf~i
The PCC has reveed ts adv ce, first ssued n 1995 on the raport ng of Gretu teus hum aten. Proport ona fy was the key to camp ance
w nners of ~he Na~ one Lottery. The G~ ~da ce }Uct~: covers four me n areas
when two newsppa ors reported on an affa r between an ar stocret s
~o ~,~JnBera who opt for anotaymity" o Ed tops shou d genera yrespect
a wife -- who it later eme~ed suffered from mental Ilness i and a
winner’s wish for no publicity, unless there is a public interest in publication, former prisoner One story breached the Code, the other did not.
The ~ }eer scale of !he win is Bet, itself, a justification. Publications should The Daily Mail account -- headlined The Aristocrat’s Wife, The
bew~. e of seeking nformation about such winners by any means which Jobless Jailbird And The ’Lady Chatterley’ Affair That Pu~ Her
migh breach the C )de--such as harassment. Marriage Under Threat --was based on information from the
Winr ~re who opt I ~r pabicity are still protected by the Code. They are
girlfriend of the man involved. It spoke of text messages and
enfitl, "~ to expect je jrnalste to take care not to publish inaccurate material
reveaed where sexua encounters had taken pace But the
ebou them, or har~ ss them, , Thor prvacy s prete--edc~ by Caues 3 -newspaper
de berate y om tied more nt mate deta s about the
altho gh the PCC ~ ,ould take into account whether s milar material had
relationship. A second story was published in the News of the
been ut ntothe p b cdomanwththewnner’scensent.
~< VB|B~ ,table winr~et ; The very young, or old, Or the Sick or recently
bere~ ted may mak, particularly good copy;, but they are stll entitled to
stun protectlo
But
ller the Code-- regardless o! the sums mvofi/ed,
World , basedontheconfessonsoftheadutarousboy~rendhmsef ,
under the headline Lady Mucky Wanted Me Rough And Reedy, it
included intimate details of sexual activity
In each case, the PCC said the key issue was the balance of one
parson’s freedom of expression versus another person’s right to
~" te,#~ .is ant inie emends; Offering rewards to people to identify privacy. In the Marl, the girltiend’e right to give her side of the story
anon moue lottery’ ,innere is banned, unless it is in the public interest. The had been maintained, without including "humiliating and gratuitously
PCC tee bars joUr a]iste from seeking information from Camelot Staff intrusive detail" about the wife. The complaint of an intrusion into
who weudbreact thedufyof confdencetethewnnereunderthe ottery P rye CY vcasthereforenotu P hed ......~, ~Aw~,man D"if ~e# ~y .... Rer>ortT4.
orgaT sere" icenca 20E;7
However the News of the World story failed the PCC
proportionality test. The Commission ruled that the public interest
involved in exposing adultery by Someone who had married into an
aristocratic family wa s insufficient to justify the level of intimate detail
that had been given. [A woman ;qews ot the Wet)d: R~Bort 74.
2007).
The panel
colour code
What the
Coae says
!~ :: Key
questions
edilors neee
to ~sl{
themselves
wnen Code
~ssues arise
~ Briefings
on sueclic
areas where
~he Code
aonlies
MOD100036635