The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPs
to bs dons, bl tthe ,CC
t common rela e ts:
gue fhat the rE port ~ a
r privaCY. 1"he )CC
,~mpSraneO".’ repo ~ of
~ould dem0nst ate a
~nstrated in a ompl ed
:h the editor wihlthe
¯ Such compl~ rite a
highlight the I:
stance Case s
.ient gravity to
rcee~ iiOn
’aB
varra a
The Poe decided that while the father had not actively consented
to the picture, he and his daughter were making anti-social gestures
at a major sporting event in front of the mass media it was not
unreasonable to assume he was unconcerned about cublication
Consent was therefore Implied. The complaint was rejected. ’©u/LJ~
v ;q;e meg~.~zttl~: R:~pott T’~ 2,2bP;)
Paymerlt to children: Even where consent is forthcoming [hera
could be uitfslls-- especially if money is involved. The Code puts an
obligation on tne press not to make payments to minors -- or their
parents -- unless it is clearly in the child’s interest.
Technically, this could mean that a payment to an unscrueulous sr
greedy Derant, if it were demonstrably not in the child’s interest
would be e breach.
Children of the famous: The rules apply equally to children of
parents from all walks of life. The rule that made it a breach for e
1B-year-old Accringtan boy to be approached by a reporter at school
(Livesey v Accrington Observer and Times: Report 30. f 995 -- see
note in marginj was used to protect Princes Will,am and Harry at
Eton
While the Princes are cubilc figures Jn their own right -- and
therefore must expect eccrocnate publicity -- the same is not true
of the children sf most other public figures, who are entitled to
normal levels of ol1vaCy
The Code therefore stipulates that the celebrity or notoriety of the
the public interest ts demonstrate poor supervision sf the ~uplls, all
of whom were over 16.
The PCC agreed it was legitimate to use the video material ts
spotlight classroom conditions -- but it was not necessary to identify
the pupils. It upheld the complaint against the weekly newspaper,
but rejected comeleints against two national tabloids that had used
the materiel without identifying the students, fGadd~s ~’ H&~m~/tot
Ad’~rfiser R~’~om 75 201J7); (Gaddis ~ ScottisP~ Da~t> MitY~r. F~e~o~
75 2007); (Gsdd.~ v Sceff/sh Sun" RspcW 7~;~ 2007)¯
There was no question sf parental consent when a topless
photograph of a 14-year-old girl appeared in e lad’s magazine’s
gallery of mobile phons shots sent in by readers. The magazine’s
defence that the girl looked older and that they believed her ts be
living with the person who submitted the picture, did net impress the
PCC. It said the magazine had not taken adequate care to establish
the provenance of the photograph or whether it was appropriate to
publish it. M uoupte v ~;7~M m~*ga~ine: ~eport 75 200~
A local newspaper fell into a similar trap when it publicised e
charity event while relying solely on information from the fundraise~
It pictured a 16-year-old boy and e girl of 14, saying they were both
seriously ill and that the girl suffered from a muscle-wasting disease.
But the girl’s mother said the paper had ignored her request to
contact her prior to publication, in fact, her daughter was not
seriously fll and was only giving moral support to the boy, who was
her cousin. The PCC upheld her complaints of intrusion into echitd’s
privacy and inaccuracy ~ ,’~.~ s K~,’~t Messer,~er: ~eoort 70
2~F7.5 L
implied consent: A father complained when Zos magazine
published, without consent, a photograph of him and his 1g-yearold
daughter making offensive gestures on the terraces of Old
Trafford following Chelsea’s defeat to Liverpool in the FA Cup. The
father said tne picture ridiculed his daughter and should have bse~
pixillatad.
A story revealing that Euan Blair had applied for a place at Oxford
University was also ruled to be an unnecessary intrusion, with no
excectional public interest. ~: ~ar/~ si~,~n ~eoos ~/
~092
But a national tabloid’s story about former Education Secretary
Ruth Kelly sending one of her children to a criveta school for pupils
with learning difficulties did pass the Poe’s oubhc interest test.
In an ettemct to concentrate on the legitimata public debate about
a Minister removing her child from the state education system, the
~ewspaper nee named Ms Kelly but not revealed the name, se~ or
age of the child, nor identified his new school. The story was about
the parents -- one of whom had been resconsible for national
education policy -- and not the child. The comcleint was rejected.
8hel~rad lives: The extant to which parents keep children sut of
...................... be taken into eccounL The Poe has said it
.................. individual once they begin to acquire a public
profile in their own right.
The author J. K. Rowling had gone to great lengths to protect the
privacy of her eight-year-old daughter, wns was nonetheless pictured
in a magazine while sne pnvate beach on holiday The complaint
was uoheld because the unsolicited publicity would affect me child’s
welfare and the picture was cubllshed only because of the fame of
her mother ’~’~owUng v Ot~J M~m.~ztne. Reper~ 55. 2001
parent cannot be a sole justification for publishing details of the Pi~:ures which do r~et need consent: However, net all pictures sf
private lives of children, children need consent -- only those that involve the welfare of the
Tony and Cherie Blair complained about a story containing child, or which ere taken in s pdvete place. The PCC has ruled that
allegations that their daughter Kathryn was receiving special mere publication of a child’s image cannot breach the Code when it
treatment by obtain ng e place in an slits school. The PCC said there is taken in a public place and is unaccompanied by any private
was ns public interest in making Kathryn the centre of the story, details or material that might embarrass or inconvenience the child,
particularly as ns misdemeanour had been proved. (~tsir v Mail on which is particularly unlikely in the case of babies or very young
Sunday: Report 47, 1999L
children
@ Cases
a(1judlcated
before 1996
are available
n narmcopy
format from
the PCC on
application to
Tonia Milton
n formation
and Events
Manager, on
o,-is muio i~
cc o~ ~
MOD100036642