The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Th~ Me~ rul~ fd~ C ,; ;~÷ For Distribution to CPs detained under d breach the codes E mind by ed tots ;t; rms "jail", "cell" or t of ten such nels dePided they also been found to .=r the Patients" Breadmoor provide 1era. ch as "nutteff and - whether detained and cause distress are and treatment. the reporter had not attempted to speak to anyone other than the receptionist, and had not concealed her identity, visiting the reception area was net a breach of the Code, However, it noted with approval that the hospital had amended its security procedures -- and that the newspaper had accepted that the preferred approach would have been by telephone..fC~ ~’ Ddij Similar institutions: The Poe has held that, in the spirit of the Code, the vulnerability of the patient or individual should be taken into account when deciding what constitutes a similar institution. When Countess Spencer was photographed at a clinic, where she was race ring treatment for health problems, it was seen as a clear breach (Spencerv News of the World: Repor~ 29. 1995 -- see note in margin). But the Commission nas ruled that a residential home for the eldsdy could also be a similar institution, if a number of residents needed mad cal supervision. It urged journalists to think hard before approaching people in such establishments, especially if their state of health made them vulnerable. ~’A m~n v Da~ v Ma~!: R~ ~ ~oH 58 The public inf;erest: While newspapers should always proceed with caution, there are cases where otherwise proscribed action can be justified in the public interest. /n 2001 the parents of a comatose woman brain-damaged by domestic violence desperately wanted DublicJty to expose what they saw as the inadequate sentence on the attecke~: They invited a cameraman to accompany them on a hospital visit to photograph the pitiful pligt~t of the victim. The NHS Trust complained thatthe pt~otographer had not sougt~t permission from a responsible executive. However the PCC ruled that it was in tt~e public interest that the parents should be able to demonstrate their d!sgust atthe leniency of the sentence -- and that readers might not have been able to appreciate the gravity of the situation had the picture not been publ!srled. ~’~,,~ n ~, d ,V’~mf::su The clause also requires that n making inouiries from hospitals and similar institutions editors need to be mJndfu of the general restrictions on privacy, which include specific reference to health 206! Vere editorie! Staff i~ a non-pubtic area? )id they iden~i~y themselves ~e e responsible ~eostive? The term executive was introduced to ensure ~ppr0priste seniority. r~as there a public ~atareat in psbl~cation? Cases ao ue~cateo before 1996 are avatlae~e in hard-copy format from the PCC on aDplicatlon tc Tonia Milton Information and Events Manage~ or o.~ @Cases aojudlcated before 1996 are available n nard-copy format from the PCC on appuca~on [o Tonic Milton Informa[~on arid Everlts Manager o~ ~;cc or~i.u~ MOD100036645 70
Gudt s~ 8ssoc~aUon For Distribution to CPs =[=his clause is designed to protect the innocent from being caught accused person to court or made public statements on the case, that |unnecessarily In the publicity spotlight focused on the guilty Relatives or friends should not normally be named unless they a~ would add genu ne relevance. genuinely relevant to the story ~ or there is reason to publish in the Tone and proportion: However, the Commission would also take public interest, Child witnesses or victims of crime need special account of the tone of the article -- how much the storyfoccsed on consideration the relationship -- and whether that was relevant or in the public Complaints usually hinge on genuine relevance to the story or interest whether there is a pu blic interest in them being mentioned or whether A complaint from a councillor, named in a report when his son was identification is gratuitous, arrested for bootlegging was ’ re ected. ]-he PCC decided the simple The panel colour co~le The PCC has taken a cornmonsense line. If a relationship were factual identification of an rnportant community figure did not breach wel! known and established in the public domain, then it would be the Code. (@,~o~a ~o L:)aJy £x~re,’- s -epor~ 4J, 1997} ~ Wha the Codesays perverse to expect editors to omit reference to it. Similarly if a parent, for example, publicly accompanied the L kew se ’ Mrs Ann G nag ’ wide y known as the owner of a Scottish castle, objected when she was named nstor es report ng her sondn-law’s arrest for allegedly assaulting her daughter, But the daughter lived at the castle -- and the accused husbano had been banned from it as part of the bail conditions The PCC said Mrs Gloag’s relevance to the story had been ~’~ Ke ~st~o% emmrs neen to ask themselves ~vhen Code ssues anse established by her ownership of the castle named in the court ~,~ Briefings on specific papers. Being related to the accused did not give her rights to anonymity that would otherwise not exst (G~ea~ f P~,~;hir~ areaswnere the Code applies 8 But another case, where a front-page report named and pictured a councillor whose son was accused of a serious drink-driving offence, was upheld. While the PCC accepted there was a public interest in naming the councillor, because of her tocel prominence and the fact that she had attended court with her son, it ruled that no °s s %~ ~{T Rt;L NGS .=fetives or friends consent ~o identification? Consent might be impti~ ~d by being publicly invelved or pictured with the defendant. ~ eD©~{ 4 T:;;e;~ F~rt~s£ir~ ,~vs~:,~: ~:~ ~or ~5 ;;’;;b! Are t "ray genuinely relevant to the ~ery? Do they have a role, either in the ~ ei ,, ,~e%~boume A ~’~;~ qcw~ : sS/6(. :?f;{3~ case or through a close involvement with the defendant? Could they be pars[ nelly Or professionally affected by the case or its outcome? is ~ ,nfion {n the public ktte~st? Is the relationship in the public domain, caul~ the case affect the public life of ~e relative or friend? Is th~ ~ f~cUs proportionate f~ the involvement Of relafiva or friend? Has ~uffi~ient care been faken te protect vu|nerabta children? public interest had been served by the story being focused so predominantly on her ece}, v t~as~bcu~.qe },as, erie- ;Zepo~7 "~" Protecting children’s welfare: The special protection g~ven to children in sub-clause 9ii is a continuation of the spirit of the Clause 6 prows~ons and amounts to a duty of care aimed at preventing them from becoming further damaged, or their welfare affected, by their innocent involvement as w~tnesses or victims of crime. A tocel newspaper, which named a 12-year-old witness to an attempted kidnap, breeched the Code -- even though it believed the girl’s mother had authorised the disclosure. The mother said she had not realised that the reporter’s talephone call was an interwew or what would be published. The PCC ruled that the newspaper had not paid sufficient regard to the girl’s vulnerability. ~a~ v Fa,s~ourne /~rgus: ~spem 5~/60, 2002) Legal freedem: The Code is clear (gii) that this alone should not affect the right to report legal proceedings. However, m cases involving the identification of children or victims of sex crimes, the Code’s requirements may be stiffer than those in law. (See Clause 6: Children and C!ause I f: Wc~ims of Sexual Assautg. Lx~ w,~w,e~torsco~e,er£,~ 71 MOD100036646
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 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: For Distribution to CPs victims und
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?