Telephone Calls
22. Broadcasters should normally identify
themselves to telephone interviewees from the outset, or seek
agreement from the other party, if they wish to broadcast a recording
of a telephone call between the broadcaster and the other party.
23. If factual programme-makers take someone
by surprise by recording a call for broadcast purposes without
any prior warning, it is the equivalent of doorstepping (see paragraphs
25, 26, 27) and similar rules apply. Such approaches should only
take place where there is reason to believe that there is an overriding
public interest and the subject has refused to respond to reasonable
requests for interview, or has a history of such failure or refusal,
or there is good reason to believe that the investigation will
be frustrated if the subject is approached openly.
24. Other recordings of telephone conversations
for broadcast purposes made with the agreement of one of the parties
but without the knowledge of the other party are to be assessed
by the criteria which apply to secret recording on private property.
(See paragraph 18.)
DOORSTEPPING
25. People who are currently in the news
cannot reasonably object to being questioned and recorded by the
media when in public places. The questions should be fair even
if they are unwelcome. If the approach is made by telephone, the
broadcaster should make clear who is calling and for what purpose.
Nevertheless, even those who are in the news have the right to
make no comment or to refuse to appear in a broadcast. Any relevant
broadcast should make clear that a person has chosen not to appear
and mention such person's explanation, if not to do so could be
materially unfair. (See also paragraph 12.)
26. Outside the daily news context, different
considerations apply. But surprise can be a legitimate device
to elicit the truth especially when dealing with matters where
there is an overriding public interest in investigation and disclosure.
Doorstepping in these circumstances may be legitimate where there
has been repeated refusal to grant an interview (or a history
of such refusals) or the risk exists that a protagonist might
disappear.
27. Repeated attempts to take pictures or
to obtain an interview when consent has been refused can, however,
constitute an unwarranted infringement of privacy and can also
constitute unfairness. Care must also be taken not to make it
easy to locate or identify the refuser's address unless it is
strictly relevant to the behaviour under investigation and there
is an overriding public interest.
SUFFERING AND
DISTRESS
28. Broadcasters should not add to the distress
of people caught up in emergencies or suffering a personal tragedy.
People in a state of distress must not be put under any pressure
to provide interviews. The mere fact that grieving people have
been named or suggested for interview by the police or other authorities
does not justify the use of material which infringes their privacy
or is distressing. Such use is justified only if an overriding
public interest is served. Broadcasters should take care not to
reveal the identity of a person who has died, or victims of accidents
or violent crimes unless and until it is clear that the next of
kin have been informed.
29. Programme-makers should also be sensitive
to the possibility of causing additional anxiety or distress when
filming or recording people who are already extremely upset or
under stress, for example at funerals or in hospitals. Normally,
prior consent should be obtained from the family or their agents.
— At funerals, programme-makers should
respect their requests to withdraw.
— No attempt should be made to enter
wards or other places of treatment in hospitals without clear
and informed authorisation from the medical staff and the individuals
concerned or those acting on their behalf.
Broadcasters should also respect any reasonable
arrangements made by the emergency services to supervise media
access to victims of crime or accident or disaster, or their relatives,
in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy.
30. Broadcasters should ask themselves whether
the repeated use of traumatic library material is justified if
it features identifiable people who are still alive or who have
died recently.
REVISITING PAST
EVENTS
31. Programmes intended to examine past
events involving trauma to individuals, including crime, should
try to minimise the potential distress to surviving victims or
surviving relatives in retelling the story. So far as is reasonably
practicable, surviving victims or the immediate families of those
whose experience is to feature in the programme, should be informed
of the programme's plans and its intended transmission. Failure
to do this might be deemed an unwarranted infringement of privacy,
even if the events or material to be broadcast have been in the
public domain in the past.
CHILDREN
32. Children's vulnerability must be a prime
concern for broadcasters. They do not lose their rights to privacy
because of the fame or notoriety of their parents or because of
events in their schools. Care should be taken that a child's gullibility
or trust is not abused. They should not be questioned about private
family matters or asked for views on matters likely to be beyond
their capacity to answer properly. Consent from parents or those
in loco parentis should normally be obtained before interviewing
children under 16 on matters of significance. Where consent has
not been obtained or actually refused, any decision to go ahead
can only be justified if the item is of overriding public interest
and the child's appearance is absolutely necessary.
Similarly, children under 16 involved in police
enquiries or court proceedings relating to sexual offences should
not be identified or identifiable in news or other programmes.
AGENCY OPERATIONS
33. Broadcasters should be clear about the
terms and conditions upon which they are granted access to police
operations and those of other law enforcement agencies, emergency
services or bodies working directly with vulnerable people. When
accompanying such operations, crews should identify as soon as
practicable for whom they are working and what they are doing.
If asked to stop filming on private premises by the property owner
or occupier, or to leave, they should do so unless there is an
overriding public interest. Bystanders caught on camera should
have their identities obscured, where unfairness might arise.
Annex 3
PROCEDURES
PROCEDURE IN FAIRNESS AND PRIVACY CASES
GENERAL
1. This document sets out the usual procedure
to be followed in dealing with complaints in relation to fairness
and privacy. It cannot anticipate every eventuality and the Commission
may depart from its usual procedures when it considers it appropriate
in the interests of fair dealing.
PRE-ENTERTAINMENT
2. Complaints should normally be in writing
and submitted on the Commission's form (hard copy or by email).
If the complaint is in a letter and appears to be within the Commission's
remit but the letter does not contain all the required information,
the Commission notifies the complainant of what other information
is required and/or sends the complaint form for completion.
3. If the complaint is clearly outside the
Commission's remit, the Commission explains to the complainant
why it cannot be considered. Otherwise, a tape of the programme
in question is normally obtained from the broadcaster and the
complaint is referred to the Head of Complaints (Fairness) or
the Deputy Director for a decision as to whether it should be
entertained or, in more complex cases, to a sub-group of Commissioners.
The complainant is informed of the outcome.
4. If the complainant or the broadcaster
challenges the decision of the sub-group as to whether to entertain
a complaint and provides additional or new information of relevance
or indicates other good grounds for doing so, the decision may
be referred back to the sub-group for reconsideration. The complainant,
in the case of a challenge by the complainant, or both parties,
in the case of a challenge by the broadcaster, will be informed
of the outcome.
WRITTEN STAGES
5. Once a complaint has been entertained,
a copy of the complaint is sent to the broadcaster with a request
for a statement in response and a transcript of the programme.
The ITC or the Radio Authority, if the relevant regulator, is
informed of the complaint.
6. On receipt of the statement, the Commission
copies it to the complainant and considers whether a second round
of comments from the complainant and a further response from the
broadcaster is needed. The Commission also considers whether to
hold a hearing. The complainant and the broadcaster are notified
of the Commission's decision.
7. If a second round is required, the complainant
is asked for comments on the broadcaster's statement and, once
received, they are copied to the broadcaster for a response. The
broadcaster's response is copied to the complainant.
8. Additional written material submitted
after the broadcaster's statement or, if a second round is requested,
after the broadcaster's response to the complainant's set of comments,
is normally only considered by the Commission if it appears to
have a bearing on the complaint and could not have been produced
before or by completion of the written stages.
9. If the Commission has decided not to
hold a hearing, the Commission considers the complaint at a meeting
without the complainant or the broadcaster present.
HEARINGS
10. If the Commission has decided to hold
a hearing, the complainant and the broadcaster are notified of
the date of the hearing. Normally at least four weeks notice will
be given to the parties. A representative of any relevant regulator
may attend if the broadcaster comes within its jurisdiction. The
Commission may also invite any other person whom it considers
might be able to assist.
11. Hearings are in private and members
of the public are not admitted. The proceedings are to be regarded
as confidential and are not to be disclosed, except insofar as
they are eventually recorded in the Commission's adjudication.
No tape recording may be made nor any verbatim report taken. Each
of the parties may bring to the hearing any other person (normally
up to a maximum of five), provided the Commission considers they
may be able to assist at the hearing. Their names and a description
of their purpose at the hearing is to be provided at least seven
days before the hearing.
12. The procedure at hearings is normally
as follows:
(a) the chairman explains the proceedings;
(b) the complainant briefly summarises his/her
case;
(c) the broadcaster briefly answers;
(d) the Commissioners present put questions
to the complainant and the broadcaster; the complainant and the
broadcaster may at the chairman's discretion ask questions of
each other through the chair;
(e) first the broadcaster, then the complainant
concludes with a brief final statement of up to five minutes.
13. New material is not normally accepted
at a hearing. If an opening statement is made, it should only
be an outline of the key points already submitted to the Commission
and normally no more than ten minutes is allowed at the hearing
for reading it out. Copies will only be accepted if they are an
exact record of what is in the statement and statements should
not be sent in advance. Each party may make a closing statement,
if so wished, of up to five minutes. This should be limited to
the points made during the hearing. After completion of a hearing
the Commission will consider its findings in private.
ADJUDICATIONS
14. At the meeting to consider the complaint
or after the hearing, if one takes place, the Commission will
decide whether the complaint is upheld, upheld in part, not upheld
or upheld/not upheld overall. The Commission will also consider
whether, where a complaint is upheld, or upheld overall or in
part, it wishes to make directions for publication and/or broadcast
of a summary of its adjudication.
15. Once the adjudication has been signed
on behalf of the Commission, it will be circulated to the parties.
If the complaint has been upheld, or upheld overall or in part,
a summary will also be circulated and, if directions for publication
and/or broadcast have been made by the Commission, the parties
will be asked for their proposals as to implementation.
16. Once the parties have had an opportunity
to point out any factual inaccuracies in the adjudication and
(if any) the summary, a copy of the summary (where a complaint
has been upheld, or upheld overall or in part) or brief details
of the case (where the complaint has not been upheld or upheld
overall) will be published in the Commission's bulletin. In the
case of a complaint that has been upheld, or upheld overall or
in part, the Commission will, at the same time, post a copy of
the adjudication on the website.
Annex 5
ENTERTAINMENT
| 1998-99 | 1999-2000
| 2000-01 | 2001-02
| 2002 | Total |
| Complaints received |
| | | |
| |
| Total fairness and privacy | 333
| 376 | 360 | 358
| | |
| Fairness combined with Privacy | 43
| 52 | 39 | 26 |
| |
| Privacy alone | 8 | 22
| 13 | 8 | |
|
| Privacy complaints entertained |
| | | |
| |
| Fairness combined with Privacy | 29
| 30 | 23 | 20 |
22 | 124 |
| Privacy alone | 6 | 18
| 10 | 6 | 9 |
49 |
| Withdrawn/ceased | 7 |
12 | 6 | 6 | 2
| 33 |
| Privacy complaints not entertained |
| | |
| | |
| Fairness combined with Privacy | 7
| 13 | 10 | 1 |
1 | 32 |
| Privacy alone | 2 | 1
| 3 | 1 | 5 |
12 |
Annex 6
COMPLAINTS ADJUDICATED
| 1998 | 1998-99
| 1999-2000 | 2000-01
| 2001-02 | 2002
| Total |
Infringement in the making
and/or broadcast
| | | |
| | | |
| Making only | 0 |
2 | 1 | 2 | 0
| 3 | 8 |
| Broadcast only | 2 |
16 | 9 | 21 | 9
| 11 | 68 |
| Making and broadcast | 1
| 13 | 9 | 10 |
5 | 9 | 47 |
| Anonymity | 0 | 3
| 4 | 4 | 1 |
2 | 14 |
| Hearing held | 2 | 14
| 7 | 1 | 1 |
2 | 27 |
| Upheld (whole or in part)
| | | |
| |
| Privacy only | 0 | 4
| 3 | 6 | 2 |
1 | 16 |
| Fairness and privacy | 0 |
12 | 5 | 4 | 0
| 3 | 24 |
| | |
| | | | 40
|
| Not upheld | |
| | | |
| |
| Privacy only | 0 | 2
| 3 | 3 | 2 |
10 | 20 |
| Fairness and privacy | 3 |
13 | 11 | 19 | 10
| 9 | 65 |
| | |
| | | | 85
|
Annex 7
COMPLAINTS ADJUDICATED
| 1998 | 1998-99
| 1999-2000 | 2000-01
| 2001-02 | 2002
| Total |
Commoner types of complainant
by broad category
| | | |
| | | |
| Individuals in personal capacity | 0
| 9 | 12 | 17 |
2 | 13 | 53 |
| Upheld | 0 | 7
| 4 | 8 | 1 |
2 | 22 |
| Company/firm/business | 2 |
7 | 3 | 7 | 3
| 3 | 25 |
| Upheld | 0 | 3
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
0 | 6 |
| Professionals | 1 | 5
| 4 | 2 | 0 |
4 | 16 |
| Upheld | 0 | 3
| 3 | 1 | 0 |
0 | 7 |
| Those with crime/criminalconnection | 0
| 0 | 3 | 3 |
4 | 2 | 12 |
| Upheld | 0 | 0
| 0 | 1 | 1 |
1 | 4 |
| Employees | 0 | 2
| 0 | 1 | 1 |
1 | 5 |
| Upheld | 0 | 1
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 1 |
| Minors | 0 | 1
| 0 | 0 | 2 |
0 | 3 |
| Upheld | 0 | 1
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 2 |
Commoner types of programme
by broad category
| | | |
| | | |
| News/Current affairs | 1
| 10 | 7 | 7 |
1 | 10 | 36 |
| Upheld | 0 | 5
| 2 | 1 | 0 |
1 | 9 |
| Investigative | 2 | 9
| 3 | 7 | 2 |
4 | 27 |
| Upheld | 0 | 4
| 2 | 1 | 1 |
0 | 8 |
| Criminal reconstruction0 | |
1 | 1 | 3 | 4
| 4 | 13 |
| Upheld | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
1 | 2 |
| Observational documentary0 |
| 2 | 2 | 3 |
1 | 1 | 9 |
| Upheld | 0 | 1
| 2 | 2 | 1 |
1 | 7 |
| 1998 | 1998-99
| 1999-2000 | 2000-01
| 2001-02 | 2002
| Total |
Programmes attracting five
or more complaints by
broad category
| | | |
| | | |
| News/Regional News | 1 | 5
| 6 | 4 | 1 |
8 | 25 |
| Upheld | 0 | 1
| 1 | 1 | 0 |
1 | 4 |
| Cook Report | 1 | 4
| 1 | 1 | 0 |
0 | 7 |
| Upheld | 0 | 2
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 3 |
| The Ferret | 0 | 1
| 0 | 1 | 1 |
3 | 6 |
| Upheld | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 1 |
| [X] From Hell | 0 | 0
| 3 | 2 | 0 |
1 | 6 |
| Upheld | 0 | 0
| 1 | 1 | 0 |
0 | 2 |
| Non-television broadcasters by type
| | | |
| | |
| Radio | 0 | 3 |
0 | 3 | 0 | 2
| 8 |
| Upheld | 0 | 3
| 0 | 2 | 0 |
0 | 5 |
| Teletext | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
2 | 2 |
| Upheld | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 |
| Broadcaster | |
| | | |
| |
| BBC1 | 0 | 10 |
7 | 3 | 4 | 2
| 26 |
| Upheld | 0 | 5
| 3 | 1 | 1 |
0 | 10 |
| BBC2 | 0 | 2 |
2 | 4 | 1 | 3
| 12 |
| Upheld | 0 | 1
| 1 | 1 | 0 |
2 | 5 |
| ITV (total) | 1 | 11
| 12 | 15 | 5 |
11 | 55 |
| Upheld | 0 | 4
| 3 | 4 | 2 |
2 | 15 |
| Channel 4 | 2 | 3
| 1 | 5 | 2 |
2 | 15 |
| Upheld | 0 | 2
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
0 | 3 |
| SC4 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 1 | 1 | 0
| 3 |
| Upheld | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 |
| Channel 5 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
1 | 1 |
| Upheld | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 |
| BSkyB | 0 | 1 |
0 | 1 | 0 | 0
| 2 |
| Upheld | 0 | 1
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 1 |
| TV3 Sweden | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 1 |
| Upheld | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 |
| ITV by individual broadcaster (totals 1998-2002)
| |
| ITV | 3 |
| Upheld | 0 |
| Carlton | 15 |
| Upheld | 5 |
| Granada | 9 |
| Upheld | 4 |
| Westcountry | 3 |
| Upheld | 0 |
| Central | 3 |
| Upheld | 1 |
| HTV | 10 |
| Upheld | 3 |
| GMTV | 1 |
| Upheld | 0 |
| Meridian | 3 |
| Upheld | 1 |
| UTV | 1 |
| Upheld | 0 |
| LWT | 3 |
| Upheld | 1 |
| Scottish TV | 1 |
| Upheld | 0 |
| Border | 1 |
| Upheld | 0 |
| Tyne Tees | 1 |
| Upheld | 0 |
| UBE | 1 |
| Upheld | 0 |
| 1998 | 1998-99
| 1999-2000 | 2000-01
| 2001-02 | 2002
| Total |
| Commoner types of complainant |
| | | |
| | |
| Personal/confidential info. | 0
| 5 | 3 | 11 |
1 | 0 | 20 |
| Upheld | 0 | 3
| 1 | 6 | 0 |
0 | 10 |
| Secret filming | 3 | 7
| 2 | 2 | 2 |
2 | 18 |
| Upheld | 0 | 5
| 1 | 1 | 0 |
0 | 7 |
| Doorstep | 0 | 4
| 0 | 5 | 2 |
2 | 13 |
| Upheld | 0 | 2
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 3 |
| Photograph | 1 | 6
| 2 | 2 | 1 |
0 | 12 |
| Upheld | 0 | 4
| 2 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 7 |
| Footage of house/car | 0 |
2 | 3 | 0 | 0
| 4 | 9 |
| Upheld | 0 | 1
| 2 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 3 |
| Car accident | 0 | 0
| 1 | 2 | 1 |
1 | 5 |
| Upheld | 0 | 0
| 1 | 2 | 1 |
1 | 5 |
Part of Annex 11
THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION
COMPLAINT FROM
MR PECK—ADJUDICATION
Introduction
In the week prior to 11 March 1996, BBC broadcast trailers
for an episode of their series about crime prevention, Crime
Beat. These included footage from Brentwood Council's CCTV
system taken on 20 August 1995 which showed Mr Geoffrey Peck standing
alone in Brentwood town centre holding a knife. He was then shown
being led away by two police officers. On 11 March 1996 Mr Peck
telephoned Brentwood Council to complain about the trailers, which
were shown on two other occasions before the programme.
Later on 11 March 1996, the programme was shown, including
the excerpt of Mr Peck, but with his face masked. The excerpt
was accompanied by commentary from the presented Martyn Lewis,
which explained that the CCTV camera operator had spotted a man
carrying a knife, and that the Council had alerted a police patrol,
warning them of a possible danger. The programme then included
Essex police officers describing how they had disarmed Mr Peck;
they said that Mr Peck had not acted aggressively towards them.
On 12 March 1996 Mr Peck wrote a letter of complaint to the
programme makers, Folio Productions. His letter was passed to
the BBC, and the BBC replied on 21 March 1996. They apologised
for Mr Peck's face being shown unmasked during the trailers which,
they said, had been due to an oversight. Mr Peck wrote a further
letter of complaint on 2 April 1996, to which the BBC responded
on 18 April 1996.
Liberty (the National Council for Civil Liberties) complained
to the Broadcasting Standards Commission on 25 April 1996 on Mr
Peck's behalf that the trailers and the programme had unwarrantably
infringed Mr Peck's privacy, and that they were unjust and unfair
to him.
The complaint
Liberty said that Mr Peck's privacy had been unwarrantably
infringed in that:
(a) he had been filmed on Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
by Brentwood Council, without his knowledge, after having attempted
suicide and injured himself. The item had then been broadcast
on national television without his knowledge or consent, causing
him extreme embarrassment and humiliation; and
(b) the item served no public interest in that at no stage
had Mr Peck committed a crime or been suspected of doing so.
Furthermore, they said that the item had been unjust or unfair
to Mr Peck, in that the programme had been concerned with criminal
activity, but he had not been arrested for, or charged with, any
criminal offence.
Liberty said that on 20 August 1995 Mr Peck had been suffering
from severe depression following the loss of his job and the fact
that his partner had recently been diagnosed as terminally ill.
He had taken a knife with him into Brentwood town centre with
the intention of committing suicide. He had cut his wrists with
the knife. After the local council's CCTV operators had seen him
holding a knife, they had reported the matter to the police. The
police had disarmed Mr Peck, spoken to him, and had provided him
with medical attention. He had not given his permission to the
showing of the CCTV footage of this incident on TV, and had not
known that it was to be broadcast until the week prior to 11 March,
when the trailers had been shown. Although Mr Peck's face had
been obscured during the programme, it had not been obscured in
the trailers. He had, in any case, been recognised by people who
had watched just the programme itself, as he had a distinctive
hairstyle and features, which had not been properly obscured.
The broadcasting of the incident had led to his attempted suicide
being widely known among friends and neighbours and at his workplace,
and had caused Mr Peck extreme distress and humiliation. Because
this had led to comments from customers, he had had to leave his
job as a barman in a public house. Many viewers would also have
inferred that Mr Peck had intended self-harm or suicide.
The BBC said in reply that it would have been difficult to
deduce from the script that Mr Peck had intended to commit suicide.
Mr Peck had been identifiable in the trailers (in which he had
appeared for less than one and a half seconds) only as the result
of an oversight, for which they had subsequently apologised on
air in the BBC Radio Four programme You and Yours, in Channel
Four's Right to Reply, and by letter. They said Mr Peck
had himself acknowledged that, in the programme itself, his features
had been "fuzzed out", and in their view, this had been
done adequately. They did not understand how the fact that Mr
Peck had attempted suicide could have become widely known among
friends, neighbours and at his workplace. They considered viewers
would have simply thought that this was a man carrying a knife
in a public place. They had not known themselves that Mr Peck
had intended suicide until his letter of 12 March.
Liberty said that the infringement of privacy caused by the
televising of CCTV footage of Mr Peck was unwarrantable, in that
is served no public interest. Whilst it was often in the public
interest that local authority CCTV footage should be passed to
the police for investigation, there was no justification for footage
of someone in Mr Peck's position being broadcast on TV. He had
not committed a crime, nor had he been suspected of committing
a crime, and, after having been approached by the police, he had
not been arrested, but had been detained for 40 minutes under
Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for his own safety.
The televising of the incident had not been justifiable on the
basis that it was illustrative of the use of CCTV in general,
since the damage done to Mr Peck had far outweighed the public
good.
Furthermore, Liberty said that the showing of the CCTV footage
was unfair to Mr Peck, in that, because of the nature of the programme,
it had made some people who knew Mr Peck and who had seen the
programme think that he had been in some way involved in criminal
activity. They said that the fact that filming had taken place
in an entirely public location did not mean that Mr Peck could
not justifiably complain that his privacy had been infringed,
since the right to privacy also depended on factors such as consent
to the filming, the reason for the filming and the use to which
the film was put.
The BBC said that, although Mr Peck had not been charged
with an offence, he had been carrying a knife in a public place
without good reason, which, they said, was an offence under Section
139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The fact that he had been
filmed on CCTV had enabled the police to make the situation safe
at an early stage. Without the camera surveillance, it was possible
that Mr Peck's knife might have caused anxiety to others. The
item had helped serve the purpose of the programme, which had
been to show how technological advances, such as CCTV, could be
used to reduce or prevent crime, which was in the public interest.
The programme had demonstrated the effectiveness of CCTV in reducing
incidents, in enabling assessments to be made of their seriousness
and in enabling police to judge how best to deal with potentially
hazardous situations. It was justifiable in such a programme to
show not only criminal activity, but incidents which might have
been the subject of criminal proceedings. However, there had been
a change of tone and gear in the commentary in this sequence,
which would have indicated to viewers that this was a difficult
situation being defused, not an incident of criminality. They
said that the fact that Mr Peck had been filmed in a public place
was relevant in determining whether his privacy had been unwarrantably
infringed, particularly as the incident had already been shown
on Anglia Television, and was therefore already in the public
domain. Mr Peck acknowledged that this earlier broadcast had been
seen by some of his friends.
The BBC noted that Mr Peck had written an article in the
Independent on Sunday on 31 March 1996, in which the details
were given in relation to problems which had led him to his attempted
suicide. He had also appeared on Channel Four's Right to Reply
programme on 13 April 1996 and had described again the circumstances
of the incident. The fact that he had made details of his private
life more widely known in the Independent on Sunday and
Right to Reply was inconsistent with his claim that his
suicide attempt was something which he wished to keep private.
Liberty said that Mr Peck's decision to publicise his complaint
in the media had been taken after very careful consideration.
Mr Peck said that the injustice he had received was such, that
he considered that he should take action to prevent it happening
to anyone else and to ensure that his complain would be properly
dealt with. He said his decision to publicise his complain had
been vindicated, particularly by the Right to Reply programme,
in which the BBC had admitted culpability.
Evidence considered by the Commission
The Commission had before them a complaint form and supporting
statements from Mr Peck and his representatives, Liberty, and
statements from the BBC. They watched a recording of the programme
and of the Channel Four Right to Reply programme and the
trailers. A hearing was held, at which Mr Peck and the BBC were
both represented.
The Commission's findings
Mr Peck complains of both unwarranted infringement of privacy
and unfair treatment.
As to infringement of privacy, the Commission recognise that
the BBC have already acknowledged that the fact that Mr Peck's
face was not disguised in the trailers was a mistake and that
it was not their intention that he should be identified; and have
apologised for this. The Commission further recognise that the
BBC tried hard to reach a conciliation with Mr Peck.
The Commission also note the BBC's view that in the programme
itself Mr Peck's face was adequately masked and that he could
not therefore be recognised. However, in the Commission's view
this was not so, which would explain why he was recognised by
some viewers who knew him and who had watched the programme, but
not the trailers.
The Commission accept that it was not the BBC's intention
to identify Mr Peck and that the fact that he was identified was
the result of human error. Nonetheless, the effect was to reveal
to Mr Peck's family, friends and neighbours an episode which he
did not wish to be revealed. The outcome was distressing for him
and amounted to an unwarranted infringement of privacy. The fact
that Mr Peck chose subsequently to speak about this incident on
Channel Four's Right to Reply does not alter this infringement.
The Commission therefore uphold this part of the complaint.
As to unfair treatment, the Commission have noted that the
exact circumstances of the incident, and in particular that there
was an attempted suicide, were not known to the programme makers
until after the programme was broadcast. They accept, moreover,
that it was not evident from the programme that Mr Peck was attempting
to commit suicide.
There remains, however, the question of unfairness in relation
to including this incident in a crime prevention programme. The
reasonable inference to be drawn by viewers was that Mr Peck's
conduct could have been in some way criminal, comparable to that
of others shown in the programme. In fact, no criminal charges
were brought against Mr Peck, so that the impression given by
this sequence was not correct.
The BBC argued that the value of showing this sequence outweighed
the detriment to Mr Peck. The Commission recognise the important
educational value of programmes such as Crime Beat, which
educate the public about methods of crime prevention. However,
they consider in this instance the detriment to Mr Peck outweighed
the potential benefits to the public from showing this particular
sequence. Accordingly, the Commission also uphold the complaint
of unfair treatment.
13 June 1997
| 
