The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

More documents

Recommendations

Info

For Distribution to CPs The use of personal information about people stored on computer, or in income tax information from HMRC have already led ta cdminal convictions. some manuel files, is regulated by the Data Protection Act 4998. As e journalist’s job can often be about using such information it is vital that you i sometimes ~eed to get s~ch pereenal informs e. {n ~he Act are ~ere ere aware of the problems the DPA presents. Knowing about the Act, and in any e~emptior~s or dafer~ces far journalists f~o~ le cdminal offer~ces particular section 55 of that Act, which is to have an enhanced pub]ic interest Of un~Owt ~y obtai~feg end disclestil 8 irfforraal ~? defenca following discussion be~veen media representatives and ~e In part cu]~ reference to section 55, the Act recogr ,~s the irnportance of Ministry of Justice, is important because breaches of it can lead to journalisrr nd p~v]des some special exemptions ~ :l defences to avoid prosecution in the Crown Court, a criminal record and the imposition of a cunvicaon ~ut these are very limited. To escape b~ thing the ASt’e unlawful heavy fine. The Q+As in this note are designed to tell you e tittle more. obtaining ~ d disclosing offences you would, for in~ "~ca, have to prove your Please make sure you read it. actions w~ ~ in the interests of national security, W~ preventing or detecting a crime, el ~ere in the public interest in the psrticul circumstances. What does the Act de? When i brca {he new defence will also protect u if you can show that It provides legal controls ever the collection, us{ ~nd disclosure, ~f personal you acted r journalistic, literary or artistic purpose and in the reasonable data, mostly held electronically It gives rights tcn individual ab~ ,ut whom belief that the particular circumstances your acti{ was justified as being information is stored. And it imposes legal oblLc ions on a pars( n or in the pub: interest. organisation looking after the data ~ known in e Act as the °d; ~ta You we ~1 also avoid conviction if you could she :hat you were acting in controller." accardanc with the few or e court order, or in the r seeable belief that the The Act prohibits the obtaini ~ or disclosu~ = personal data without the data contr er would have consented in the circ,Jrn ncas had hetshe consent of the data controller - a prep{ice ofte known as "bla£ ging". For known, or as tegally entitled to act as ha/she did. exa 31e, it could be an offenc~ 3 decai~ an c antsation into I; "oviding you with ersonai details about an Jividualtakent ,mitscornputarreso~s-- TbeActs sndsveryw~erangi~g.Whatshoa|, ~if~arnuesure suc! ~sex-dir~:,’forypbonenul 3ere---thatth~ wouldncteth~*m,,iseagree ab~r~my wnoc~"~ens? toe =ply. ltcouldatsobeanat ncatoaskpdy e in~estigafore z) do it for TheActJs 3mpticatad. lfyouareinanydoubteb~ ~hatheroomethingyou you you knew thet they wer~ leingfoobtan ~daceptiono]other ereintand #tod0ihvelvngpersoneldatabreach~ heAct, youmust unl~ fulmeans, consult~ in-heUse]a~reandaeenioreditarf~ ~dvica. FeJlure to do this "~ ,~couldatsobebreaohin~ =therlews bo~l ~’iminatandoiv aswellas beforeyot ~ctcoutdputyouandyouremployerat [ of prosecution or the ~itafs Code upheld byth, =ress Cornplai s Commission. ether t~a ~ion. Wh; happea#if J breach ~ ~ct? Hew ## | ~d eUt mere? The ~formation CornmieSi0nel an take enforc :~ent action, inc uding You can ~ 0ut more in~rmatibn from the l~ma n Commissioner’s cdn" alprosocuti0n. Convicti0 spuni~hable~ efine,"81eggi~"pers0nal websitet~v. ~tco.~ov.uk.AJsouso~eti#kfothePC ~#Uida#cenctefo~ infol lation and phone nUmbel from BT. a~ [ details from b, ~nks, and editore on ’he Data ProtacfJen Act, journalism ace e Cod# The penet eclair code ~What the Code says auestions eel[ors nee8 to ask memsewes when Code issues arise ~. Briefings on specific areas ~qlere the Code so#lies MAD100036649
For Distribution to CPs ~ reservatien of the anonymity af Minims Of sexual assault is |regarded as paramount under the Code and this clause is not subject to the defenca that publication is in the public interesL There are cases where a victim may waive his or her anonymity or where identification has been permitted by the courts, and the Code provides for these, But the PCC has made clear that it is unlikely to recognise the legitimacy of any other claims that the identity of a sex victim is already in the public domain. Breaches are uncommon and almost always inadvertent. They fal! nto two main categories: Those caused by poor training, carelessness -- or both, and Those resulting from the inclusion of some seemingly innocuous detail. Lack of training can lead to the most blatant breaches. A woman victim of an office sex eest was distressed and embarrassed when a local newseaeer resort of the man’s conviction broke at lhs rules and included her name, employment details and sexually e×elicit difficult to establish adequate justification u~ ees a court lifts the automatic Dan o~ identification of the victim n the ntarests of justice, or the victim waives their rights to anonymity. Even where they do -- uerhaus to warn others of dangers -- that cannot necessarily be taken as permitting continuing pub icity unless the victim maintains ~..onsent. n those rare cases where courts permit the naming of sex victims there are usual y substantial grounds for doing so and these would constitute adequate justification under the Code, Legal freedo~ to oublish may aucear relatively easy to establish, but it Is not always enougn under the Code. which aoolies in the Si3irit as we~ as the lette~ The PCC uuheld a complaint against a newspaper whose reuort of a fade trial referred to evidence of what the VlCfim was wearing at the time of the attack and to her hobby The combination of details was sufficient to identify I~er to local residents and --even though the evidence had beer given in eden court-- the PCC held that the Code bound editors to rules over and above those st pulated by law and that anonymity should have been preserves ~ v~’nan v C ,d~;bank ~osL ~o~ 41. 199~ In a similar case -- involving an assault on an under-age g ~, a weekly newspapers court reoort reference to the victim’s visible injury was sufficient to cause a braacn, even thougn no third party had actually identified he[ The Commission ruled that while the mention of the injury might evidence. The editor, also deeply embarrassed, apotogised swiftly Because of staff holidays, an inexperienced reporter had prepared the story and sub-editore had missed the strait But apologies and promises to tighten up procedures were not enough. The PCC censured the newspaper for a breach so serious that any remedial action would have been inadequate. %1 ~.~r~p v M>scc/eshetd Fxs-~s& !~ez~ot! 7"4. 200~ Even when newspapers follow the fundamental rules about not naming sex assault victims without consent, risks arise if they are identifiable by some detail in the story. For that reason the PCC has warned of the onerous burden this outs on editors and insists on ’scrupulous constTuction> of stories about sex comes to ensure strict adherence to the Code. Beware off:he evidence: Assessing likelihood at identification is a potential minefield when reporting both the original crime arid any ....................... apparently insignificant to an outsider could De revealing to DOODle living ira Ioca community, who might otherwise not make the connection. A reuort of a redo, which gave details of the victim’s age, her health record and suecific details of the attack, as well as the town where the offence occurred, was ruled by the PCC to have been likely to identify he[ il~am÷s v;~s~ Pos~c~- v }%is o.’;~orz r;~,z~-m A~eqaate justification: As there is no uublic interest defence, t is have appeared insignificant, "it was a superfluous but specific detait which could have Dean sufficient to identify her, or confirm the suspicions of those who already knew something about the case." The editor could have taken greater cars by omitting the reference The complaint, and corresponding breaches in Clause 5 [Intrusio~ into Grief or Shock) and Clause 6 (Children), were ueheld - "ideS;St< V "% le~Ssnk PO~; (£~eoo,’~ 4G 998 A WO!’~, %, Stt~;~i ~nmy S ~s#Nomn P?e~S,O /F::eL:OM /’~* 20£ 75 MOD100036650
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 and 68: For Distribution to CPs victims und
Page 69 and 70: Gudt s~ 8ssoc~aUon For Distribution
Page 71: For Distribution to CPs deception a
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?