The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
For Distribution to CPs AA&rd v M~nches/er bvet#t~g Hews ~Re#ur~ 55 >UU1 i Was cenaa~t giW ~n far publCatien ~--formally Or by irnptcation? Has the e,titteml nl te privacy bee~ compromised? For example, bY the subject courting p tbticity ~r ~ellng it on their own terms? iS the individual I pub|ic figure, er role mode~ ~ and does the material reveal conduct acting on ~heir public or professional status or image? ~ M~ciean MP v Marl on Sunder (Report 72 2005 ~ Rewli,q£ v D~t@" M~o~ ~RaBo~t 72, 2005} ÷ Rewlir~g v Met/on Sunday Scottish Edidon, O~ily M~rmt, Pa//’/ Neoord ~Repori 77 2008), ~ ~dmo~ds v The Marl on Sund~y (Report 72, 2005} ~ Was the in~rma! ion already in the public domain ~ would it be reasonable for it be retrieved and made private? a Di6 indiVidualS p ~tegraphedwttheUtcalaaenfhaveereasenebta expectation Of pl ivacy? Were they out of public view a!d engaged in private activity? Was publication Was the breach t e Ridinr: v 7be @dependent (Report 73 2006} ~ Church v 7h~ Sun ~Rer~ori ~5. 2007) ~ b~ibbalw~v 7heMa#enSur~dey(Repc~ri69 2005) ~ Ceo~,sp v New’; of #~e World {Re~ert 74 2007) M~ D [~S~’: ~e v SiK~#~or7 Gezede d’~,ebo ~ 6 ~ 200 ~ n the public interest? ’~ Y .......... " " " ........ reporttana~e te the public interest served? < Charter~ ~, 7h~ Scottish Sun (Repe~’/4& !i~99} :~i~ct: W:ii ;,~m OK Magez/r~e (Re,por~ b2 2000 been sent between the teacher arid her partner, but were discovered by her employers. The Daily Mirror published one picture of the teacher as a headshot only, and the Worksop Guardian published a topless picture, but duly censored to preserve her modesty. The PCC cleared both newspapers, tt said while the publication of the story was legitimate, this was not sufficient to deprive the teacher of el rights to privacy The pictures themselves were intimate and taken in the context of a relationship. By cropping the picture, the Mirror had avolaea gratuitously humiliating the teacnel: tA womm; O~,#ty M/rm~’ ~eb@’!: TO. 2005 Similarly, for the Workeop Guardian to have oub/shed Its picture in full would nave caused unnecessary embarrassment. Censoring it showeo some respect for the woman’s privacy, ensuring no breacn of the Code, (A ’w~>msn ~ Wor£so~ f:~uerdian:/%soFt f 2095~ The Commission nas also Issueo gulaance ~Qee Briefing ,t;~naO [hat tnose National Lottery winners wno request anonymity snoulo not De identified. The sheer scale of the sum involved COula not justify publication in the pUCllC interest. -+,. t. !. {; .~ . [o~.!::5
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 and 54: For Distribution to CPs delay, affe
Page 55 and 56: Priv shot phol rul~ sex the For Dis
Page 57: For Distribution to CPs Private hea
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?