Memorandum submitted by the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport
PRIVACY AND MEDIA INTRUSION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Government's starting point for
consideration of all the issues raised by the Select Committee
is that a free press is vital in a healthy democracy. The press
in this country do not take their freedom lightly, and they certainly
do not take it for granted, jumping to defend the principle whenever
they feel it threatened. Some might accuse them of self-interest,
but we believe that it is much more than that, and share with
them the belief that the right to freedom of expression is one
to be cherished. This does not mean that we believe that there
should be a free-for-all with no limitations on what can be published,
and we think it is right from time to time to remind the industry
that with freedom comes responsibility.
1.2 We also believe that it is important
to note the context. For example, figures produced by ABC, the
watchdog set up to provide independent verification of newspaper
circulation figures, show that, every day, we buy around 13 million
national newspapers, and this is boosted to more than 14 million
on a Sunday. Not to mention the 41 million regional papers sold
each week, and the 29 million free newspapers delivered to our
homes every week. That adds up to a consumption of 162 million
newspapers a week—an enormous number.
1.3 This is a hugely successful industry
that reflects, and has an impact on, every aspect of our lives.
We cannot, and do not, expect to like or agree with everything
that is printed. We have a vibrant and irreverent press that is
undoubtedly free. That does not mean it is perfect, and we believe
that there is always room for improvement. But, considering the
vast number of publications, copies distributed, and articles
they contain, the number of complaints and concerns is actually
very small. Of course, we understand that being thrust into the
public eye can be a harrowing experience, particularly as that
exposure often comes at a time when the individual is particularly
sensitive or vulnerable. Those who make complaints do so from
a genuine belief that they have been badly treated by the media.
1.4 We believe that different regimes are
appropriate for broadcasters and the press because of different
public expectations. Recent research undertaken by the ITC and
the BSC show that significantly more people use television rather
than newspapers as their main source of news. For example, 87%
of people use television as their main source, compared to just
9% who cite newspapers. The public expect broadcasters to be impartial
but they do not have the same expectations of the press. The public
know that the newspaper they choose is likely to be partisan,
and will present the news with a particular slant. History means
that we accept this from newspapers, but we have a different set
of expectations from broadcasters. We expect them to be meticulously
impartial and balanced, and it is therefore more appropriate for
their activities to be governed by statutory regulation.
1.5 The Committee has indicated that it
wishes to address nine points during the inquiry:
— the constitution and performance
of the various media's systems for complaints, including: within
the BBC, the Broadcasting Standards Commission and the Press Complaints
Commission;
— the relationship between media freedom
and media responsibility and the balance between self-regulation
and independence from the industry being regulated;
— the behaviour and record over the
last ten years, and especially the press since the establishment
of the Press Complaints Commission;
— the adequacy of the various codes
of practice in operation;
— independence of the PCC from the
industry as manifested in the Commission, Appointments Commission,
the Codes and the Code Committee;
— the mechanics of the various complaints
procedures including provision for independent, or third party
complaints and/or proactive monitoring by the complaints bodies
themselves;
— the sanctions available;
— the impact of the Human Rights Act
1998 in this area and the case for specific legislation on the
protection of privacy and/or a statutory press ombudsman.
We will look at each in turn.
2. THE CONSTITUTION
AND PERFORMANCE
OF THE
VARIOUS MEDIA'S
SYSTEMS FOR
COMPLAINTS, INCLUDING:
WITHIN THE
BBC, THE BROADCASTING
STANDARDS COMMISSION
AND THE
PRESS COMPLAINTS
COMMISSION
Broadcasting
2.1 Other submissions made to the Select
Committee will have set out in detail the workings of the regulatory
bodies so we do not propose to go over those again in detail.
2.2 The Department for Culture, Media and
Sport sets the legislative framework in relation to the handling
of privacy complaints in the broadcast media. DCMS does not itself
directly intervene in complaints about individual programmes or
schedules; the regulatory bodies are appointed to do that. In
the case of privacy the broadcasters are subject to the codes
of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. The regulators maintain
Codes of Practice for programme-makers which set guidance on the
principles to be observed. These Codes are based on the high level
principles laid down in the Communications Bill.
2.3 The Broadcasting Standards Commission
provides redress to people who believe they have been subjected
to an unwarranted infringement of privacy. It considers complaints
about privacy in all radio and television services, including
the BBC and commercial broadcasters as well as text, cable, satellite
and digital services. It also undertakes research into public
attitudes about broadcasting and develops guidance for broadcasters.
2.4 The BSC was established as a result
of the Broadcasting Act 1996, and statutorily came into being
on 1 April 1997. It combined the functions of two predecessor
bodies: the Broadcasting Standards Council, which had a responsibility
for "taste and decency" standards; and the Broadcasting
Complaints Commission, which had the functions of adjudicating
on individual complaints of unfairness or unwarranted infringements
of privacy.
2.5 The BSC's main statutory functions in
relation to privacy are:
(a) to draw up, and from time to time review,
a code giving guidance as to principles to be observed, and practices
to be followed, in connection with the avoidance of unwarranted
infringement of privacy in, or in connection with, the obtaining
of material included in programmes broadcast by the BBC, the Welsh
Authority or any licensed service;
(b) to consider and adjudicate on complaints
that relate to unwarranted infringement of privacy in, or in connection
with, the obtaining of material included in programmes broadcast
by the BBC, the Welsh Authority or any licensed service;
(c) to undertake research into matters related
to, or connected with, the avoidance of unwarranted infringement
of privacy in, or in connection with, the obtaining of material
included in programmes broadcast by the BBC, the Welsh Authority
or any licensed service.
Consideration of a privacy complaint is effectively
a quasi-judicial process which can involve hearings, if appropriate.
2.6 It is important that such a system exists
because individuals may have no other means of pursuing a complaint
and achieving some remedy, at least no alternative as quick and
affordable. This right to seek redress from a body which is independent
from the broadcasters will be retained in the Communications Bill
as an important remedy for those directly affected by a programme.
This body will be the Office of Communications.
2.7 Under the Bill, the Office of Communications
(Ofcom) will assume the BSC's privacy functions set out in Part
V of the Broadcasting Act 1996. The function currently performed
by the BSC has proved to be an effective means of redress for
individuals and groups who believe they have had their privacy
unjustifiably infringed or have been unfairly presented.
2.8 Further to this, the Bill gives Ofcom
the general duty to secure standards in the content of television
and radio services that provide the appropriate protection of
privacy. This means retaining the balance between freedom of speech
and the need to protect against potentially harmful material.
This duty applies only to television and radio programme making,
where complaints are currently investigated by the BSC.
2.9 The BSC codes must, in their general
effect, be reflected in the codes of those bodies responsible
for broadcasting: the BBC, the Welsh Authority and, in relation
to licensed services, the Independent Television Commission and
the Radio Authority. These bodies can take action themselves in
relation to breaches of the privacy provisions of their codes.
2.10 In the BBC, the Programme Complaints
Unit (PCU) plays a central role in the impartial consideration
of complaints about the unwarranted infringement of privacy. Complaints
are also considered by the BBC information, management and programme
departments.
2.11 The PCU will investigate the complaints
of UK residents if they are about a publicly-funded BBC service
and if there appears to be a specific and serious breach of the
editorial standards set out in the BBC Producers' Guidelines.
The PCU will only investigate the complaints of non-UK residents
if they have personally been treated unfairly or had their privacy
infringed by a BBC publicly-funded service. The BBC respects the
privacy of individuals and recognises that any intrusions have
to be justified by serving a greater good. Appeals against PCU
decisions on serious complaints can be made to a sub-committee
of the BBC Board of Governors.
2.12 Complaints can be made similarly to
the Welsh Authority and, in relation to licensed services, to
the ITC and the Radio Authority.
2.13 Under the Communications Bill these
arrangements remain largely in place, but will in future be undertaken
by Ofcom. Ofcom will inherit the privacy responsibilities of the
BSC under Part V of the Broadcasting Act 1996, and will consider
regulatory action in relation to breaches of the Ofcom codes,
such as are currently considered by the ITC, Radio Authority,
Welsh Authority and the BBC. In accordance with the general scheme
of the Bill, Ofcom's responsibilities for considering complaints
against the BBC for breaches of its codes will be established
by way of amendment to the BBC agreement rather than in statute.
Press
2.14 As far as newspapers and magazines
are concerned, the industry is self-regulating through a Code
of Practice overseen by the Press Complaints Commission. The Code
covers all aspects of journalism. As well as providing redress
to members of the public who feel that they have been badly treated
by the press, it provides guidance to journalists on acceptable
standards. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has no
specific role, but clearly we have an interest, and maintain a
watching brief, monitoring the press and the PCC's judgements
to see how the Code is working in practice. A copy of the Code
of Practice is attached at Annex A.
3. THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN MEDIA
FREEDOM AND
MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY,
AND THE
BALANCE BETWEEN
SELF-REGULATION
AND INDEPENDENCE
FROM THE
INDUSTRY BEING
REGULATED
Broadcasting
3.1 The Communications Bill provides a degree
of flexibility as to how Ofcom will ensure that its duties are
fulfilled, including self- and co-regulation and contracting out.
Ofcom will need to consider the merits of and opportunities for
pursuing these alternatives to direct action by itself, but the
responsibility for ensuring that its functions, including those
relating to privacy, are effectively undertaken remains Ofcom's.
We understand that Ofcom expect to establish arrangements similar
to those currently operated by the BSC in relation to adjudicating
on privacy complaints.
Press
3.2 We believe that a free press is vital
in a democracy, but with that freedom comes responsibility. Newspapers
are bound by the law—just as we all are—but the industry
has accepted that that is not enough, and so they have agreed
to be bound by a Code of Practice. The Code of Practice overseen
by the PCC sets out formally the relationship between press freedom
and responsibility, by setting out where those responsibilities
lie, and establishing acceptable standards.
4. THE BEHAVIOUR
AND RECORD
OF THE
MEDIA OVER
THE LAST
10 YEARS, AND
ESPECIALLY THE
PRESS SINCE
THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE
PRESS COMPLAINTS
COMMISSION
Broadcasting
4.1 The Government believes that the current
system encourages good journalistic practice, and that the sanctions
set in place by the legislation are adequate to enforce this good
practice.
4.2 Over the last five years, the BSC has
received only 61 complaints about privacy, and only 16 of these
were upheld.
Press
4.3 The table below shows the number of
complaints the PCC has received and dealt with in the same timescale:
| Year | Complaints Received
| Per cent about privacy | Adjudications Made
| Upheld | Rejected
|
| 1998 | 2,505 | 12%
| 86 | 45 | 41 |
| 1999 | 2,427 | 15%
| 49 | 26 | 23 |
| 2000 | 2,225 | 12%
| 57 | 24 | 33 |
| 2001 | 3,033 | 25%
| 41 | 19 | 22 |
| 2002 | 2,630 | 24%
| 36 | 17 | 19 |
4.4 The overall trend on the number of adjudications
is downwards as more cases are resolved without the need for formal
adjudication. The PCC's early years saw relatively high levels
of adjudication but increasing understanding of what is acceptable
and an increasing body of past precedents has reduced that. 1999
saw a dramatic reduction, but that trend has been maintained.
It does take time for any new system to "bed down",
but there is reason to believe that the Code of Practice overseen
by the PCC is moving closer and closer to the heart of journalism.
There are a number of reasons for this. The Code is now central
to the training courses overseen by the National Council for the
Training of Journalists so every new journalist is fully aware
of Code, and of what is acceptable—or not. Publishers are
demonstrating how seriously they take the Code by writing clauses
into contracts of employment requiring editors and journalists
to adhere to it. Breaching the Code can mean financial penalties,
or even dismissal. The Government welcomes these moves, and sees
it as a confirmation that publishers are certainly taking the
Code more seriously, and that it is becoming an integral part
of the industry.
4.5 We have also seen that when restrictions of any kind
are made, there is a tendency to test the boundaries. When new
laws are passed, for example, there is usually a rash of test
cases which establish precedents. This has been happening with
the PCC's Code. But every adjudication adds to the store of precedent
and "case law" available to guide editors and journalists,
and serves to improve future standards.
5. THE ADEQUACY
OF THE
VARIOUS CODES
OF PRACTICE
IN OPERATION
Broadcasting
5.1 It is for the BSC to develop codes of practice with
regard to the responsibilities placed upon them in the legislation.
The Government believes they do a good job and that their codes
are properly reflected in the regulatory codes and the relevant
authorities' actions under them
Press
5.2 The newspaper and magazine Code of Practice applies
to all aspects of newspaper and magazine journalism, and it has
the advantage of being flexible enough to be changed or updated
if new situations emerge. The Government believes that, on the
whole, the system is working. As with any system of regulation—particularly
self-regulation—we recognise that there is always room for
improvement. We also recognise and welcome the fact that under
the present system necessary improvements can happen quickly.
For example, the PCC has just announced that the Code will be
updated to ban payments to witnesses in active court cases, or
in cases where there is likely to be a trial. We welcome this
as an example of the flexibility of the Code and of the PCC's
willingness to respond positively where the case has been made
for change.
6. INDEPENDENCE OF
THE PCC FROM
THE INDUSTRY
AS MANIFESTED
IN THE
COMMISSION, APPOINTMENTS
COMMITTEE, THE
CODES AND
THE CODE
COMMITTEE
Press
6.1 The Press Complaints Commission oversees the self-regulation
of an industry. It is therefore vital that the industry is engaged,
and that it plays a part in that process. It is hard to imagine
that the industry would sign up to a process in which they have
no representation and yet which they are expected to fund. It
is industry's funding—levied through the Press Standards
Board of Finance (Pressbof)—that enables the PCC to provide
a free service to the public. A survey carried out on behalf of
the PCC found that 64% of people thought it right for the industry
to pay for its regulation. Only 12% thought that taxpayers should
fund press regulation, while 7 per cent believed that those making
complaints should have to pay. But the fact that a particular
group is funding an organisation does not mean that they necessarily
have undue influence over it.
6.2 The PCC recognises that it must not—nor appear
to be—dominated by the industry; one way it seeks to achieve
this, is by ensuring that nine of its 16 members are not connected
with the newspaper industry. The lay members are appointed by
a Committee which itself is dominated by lay people; only one
of the five members has any connection with the industry. The
independence and sincerity of the lay members have never been
called into question; they are from a variety of backgrounds,
but are eminent and respected in their own fields.
6.3 The Chairman is specifically excluded by the PCC's
statute from being in any way connected with the newspaper or
magazine business. He or she is appointed by Pressbof.
6.4 The Code itself can be amended by a Committee of
national and regional newspaper and magazine editors. The members
of this Committee are proposed by the same trade associations
that propose the editorial members of the Commission. As noted
above, the Committee has recently updated the Code to ban payments
to witnesses.
6.5 Details of the current membership of the PCC, Pressbof
and the Code Committee are given at Annex B.
7. THE MECHANICS
OF THE
VARIOUS COMPLAINTS
PROCEDURES INCLUDING
PROVISION FOR
INDEPENDENT, OR
THIRD PARTY,
COMPLAINTS AND/OR
PROACTIVE MONITORING
BY THE
COMPLAINTS BODIES
THEMSELVES
Press
7.1 In newspaper reporting, this can be a difficult area,
particularly when minors are involved. In some recent cases, members
of the public have been concerned that children at the centre
of media interest have been identified. This may have happened
with the permission of their parent of guardian, but there is
an argument that identification was not in the child's best interest
and that, in some cases, they may have been the victims of crime.
For example, in law a girl under 16 is not capable of consenting
to sex, and the PCC's Code does not allow identification of children
involved in sex cases. Yet, in one example, a pregnant pre-teen
was widely identified and photographed. In law, she had self-evidently
been the victim of a crime. Some people were concerned that the
welfare of the child in this case had not been paramount. How
then to balance the views of the child's parents and of some members
of the public? The PCC might need to consider further how to reflect
that dichotomy in the Code. But, ultimately, we have to accept
that those directly involved are most often best-placed to decide
on whether it is appropriate to complain about the conduct of
the press. There is no reason to believe that those affected are,
in any way, reluctant to make a complaint; the PCC report that
there is strong recognition of their work and role among the public,
and the privacy of those complaining is protected throughout.
Nonetheless, on occasion, the PCC will consider complaints from
an indirect source, or that are self-generated. Opening up a free-for-all
would be likely to lead to a huge increase in the number of complaints
as people submit complaints about articles they simply dislike
or of which they disapprove.
7.2 It must also be recognised that people have the right
not to complain. And there have been examples of the PCC seeking
to investigate a matter raised by a third party, but where those
directly involved have refused to co-operate and have, indeed,
asked the PCC to desist (the Mary Bell case). And there are, for
example, suspicions that some photographs of celebrities, which
appear to be taken by paparazzo are, in fact, staged with the
co-operation of the subject; a PCC investigation could cause considerable
embarrassment in those circumstances.
Broadcasting
7.3 The Broadcasting Act 1996 sets out, at Section 115,
a detailed scheme for the consideration of privacy complaints:
(it should be noted that in the Act "fairness complaints"
is the term used to embrace both fairness and privacy complaints).
The BSC have established detailed arrangements with the framework
established by the Act.
7.4 The BSC responds to complaints. The other broadcasting
bodies pro-actively monitor programmes to ensure compliance with
their codes, but this is not very relevant on privacy issues:
monitoring is unlikely to reveal whether privacy has been infringed
or, even if it appears to have been, whether the infringement
was warranted.
7.5 In the BBC, complaints are handled by its programme
complaints unit, and by its information, management and programme
departments. BBC Information takes both first and third party
complaints in relation to the infringement of privacy by telephone,
e-mail and letter. It consults with the relevant programme making
department and provides an initial response. Responses by divisional
BBC management and programme makers are made in consultation with
the programme maker. In both instances, complainants who are not
satisfied with the initial finding, and whose complaint falls
within the remit of the PCU, can escalate the complaint in writing
to the Head of Programme Complaints. The PCU considers complaints
about the unwarranted infringement of privacy from both the individual
concerned and third parties.
7.6 Complainants dissatisfied with the decisions or actions
of the PCU have the right to appeal to the Governors' Programmes
Complaints Committee (GPCC). The GPCC is independently supported
in its consideration of appeals by an Editorial Adviser who is
responsible for advising the Committee about the concerns of the
complainant and the editorial issues relating to the complaint.
7.7 If the GPCC upholds an appeal, it notifies the programme
executives and the divisional management of its findings; it is
a requirement that the complaint and the findings of the GPCC
are taken into account in the framing of future programming. If
appropriate, the GPCC may require an on-air apology or correction
or direct BBC management on how to avoid similar breaches of programme
standards. If the GPPC considers that the remedial action taken
by programme makers is inappropriate, it can inform the Director
General who will review the issues raised and report back to the
GPCC.
8. THE SANCTIONS
AVAILABLE
Press
8.1 To the editor and publisher of a newspaper, the threat
that competitors will be aware that a complaint to the PCC has
been upheld is one that is treated very seriously. The vast majority
of complaints are resolved without needing adjudication. This
means that the number of complaints on which adjudication is made
is actually very small. Last year, there were 36 full adjudications
and, in 17 of those complaints were upheld. Widespread coverage
is given to upheld complaints, and competitors are eager to make
capital when they can. In these circumstances, details of the
case must also be published in a suitable prominent position in
the publication concerned. The PCC itself will also make public
its adjudications. Having a complaint upheld can actually lead
to an editor incurring a personal financial penalty. This is because
many of them (and journalists) now have adherence to the Code
written into their contracts.
8.2 Assuming that it were possible to do so, imposing
financial penalties where a breach of the Code was found is problematic.
The Code is a voluntary one, and threat of financial sanctions
is likely to prove to be a disincentive to signing up. It is likely
to lead to much greater use of the legal profession, and would
certainly lead to deliberations taking much longer. There is no
evidence that the public are seeking financial redress or penalties
against newspapers they feel have wronged them. What they say
they want is an admission of guilt and an apology when one is
due, and they want their complaints dealt with in a timely manner.
The PCC have worked hard to reduce the time taken to deal with
complaints; the average time taken to deal with a complaint has
improved significantly from 44 days in 1997 to 32 days in 2002.
In 1997, 77% were dealt with within 40 days, but by 2002, this
had risen to 85%. Satisfaction levels among those who have had
to approach the PCC is now high, particularly on this point. In
a survey, 73% of those asking the PCC to investigate a complaint
thought that the time taken to handle it was "about right".
Only 10% thought the PCC were too slow, and it is likely that
there is some correlation between those and the more complex cases
that did take longer to investigate.
Broadcasting
8.3 For broadcasters, if a complaint is upheld, the BSC's
main sanction is the power to direct the broadcaster to publish
a summary of the BSC's findings either on-air or in newspapers
and magazines. It also publishes reports of its adjudications.
8.4 However, if a breach of the Code is confirmed the
case may also be passed to the Independent Television Commission
or the Radio Authority who may impose a sanction against the broadcaster.
This could be a formal warning, a requirement for an apology on-screen,
ensuring that an item is not repeated, or a financial penalty.
In extreme circumstances, the ITC and the Radio Authority can
shorten, suspend or withdraw a television company's licence to
broadcast.
8.5 In addition to inheriting the BSC's functions relating
to privacy complaints, Ofcom will also inherit current regulators'
powers to impose sanctions for broadcasters failing to comply
with Ofcom's privacy codes. Therefore, once Ofcom has adjudicated
on a complaint, it will be able to consider whether the matter
complained of amounts to such a serious breach of a broadcaster's
obligations as to merit a sanction beyond the requirement to publish
their adverse findings. One would expect that only a very serious
or repeated breach would require further sanctions.
8.6 Although many of the relevant factors will be the
same, whilst considering the complaint, Ofcom will consider the
journalistic methods and the impact on the complainant. The imposition
of fines will depend on more general considerations of the extent
to which a broadcaster has breached its obligations under Ofcom's
codes. It is quite possible that Ofcom could find against a broadcaster
under the Part V provisions and yet conclude that there had not
been a sufficient breach of the licence conditions to merit a
sanction. If an adverse finding had already been published by
the broadcaster, Ofcom would take that into account when determining
whether a further sanction was merited and, if so, how tough that
sanction should be.
8.7 If a complaint is upheld, the BBC can do a number
of things to address the issue and ensure that mistakes and misjudgements
do not occur again. It can amend its Producers' Guidelines to
make such incidents less likely. It can also remove any offending
material from BBC archives so that, if the programme is repeated,
it will not contain the item. If the responsibility lay with the
BBC staff, it can take disciplinary action. If an independent
production company was responsible for the item, and if the breach
was serious, the BBC can decide not to use that company again.
The BBC also publishes its findings in a quarterly bulletin, and
broadcasts corrections or apologies in appropriate cases.
9. IMPACT OF
THE HUMAN
RIGHTS ACT
Broadcasting/Press
9.1 The HRA makes provision for a right to privacy in
its recognition of the right to respect for private life, but
Section 12 of the Act also provides for substantial protection
for the historic right to free speech. We recognise that the provisions
of the Act mean that an appropriate balance needs to be struck
between freedom of expression and a free press, and the right
to privacy, but it is for the courts to decide where the balance
lies, on a case by case basis.
9.2 A balance of responsibilities is already incorporated
into the newspaper industry's own Code of Practice. The Code includes
a clause on privacy stating that everyone is entitled to respect
for his or her private or family life, and that a newspaper will
be expected to justify intrusions without consent. Intrusion can
only be justified where it detects or exposes a crime or misdemeanour;
protects public health or safety; or prevents the public being
misled by a statement or action of an individual or organisation.
There is a need to strike a balance between these two rights,
and the libel laws (now increasingly accessible to ordinary people
thanks to the introduction of "no win, no fee" legal
advice) are sometimes at the junction of the two. But these are
supplemented by the Code overseen by the PCC.
9.3 We believe that the arrangements both in the current
legislation and in the Communications Bill relating to privacy
are compatible with the Human Rights Act.
10. THE CASE
FOR SPECIFIC
LEGISLATION ON
PRIVACY AND/OR
A STATUTORY
PRESS OMBUDSMAN
Broadcasting/Press
10.1 The provisions in both the current legislation and
in the Communications Bill relating to privacy do have their limitations,
but on the whole are considered to be effective. Although they
do not provide privacy rights as such, they seek to encourage
good journalistic practice by proscribing unwarranted infringements
of privacy. Broadcasters would clearly wish to avoid having to
publicise an adverse finding that their journalistic practices
were unacceptable. We do not feel it necessary to have further
specific legislation relating to privacy in the broadcast media.
10.2 The Code of Practice for newspapers and magazines
contains clear provisions for privacy. If someone is minded to
turn to legislation, the Human Rights Act, as noted above, already
contains a provision dealing with respect for private life. One
of the difficulties with privacy legislation is that details would
necessarily become public when action was taken, and it is likely
that few people who felt their privacy had been breached would
be keen to pursue what is likely to be a lengthy, costly, public
option.
10.3 The fundamental objection that many people have
to the idea of an Ombudsman overseeing press complaints is that
this would mean some form—however minimal and tenuous—of
state control over the press. We believe that it is quite simply
not acceptable to the people of this country that there be any
Government intervention in our free press. It has not been acceptable
in the past, and we can see no reason why it should be now.
Annex A
CODE OF PRACTICE
1. ACCURACY
(i) Newspapers and periodicals must take care not to publish
inaccurate, misleading or distorted material including pictures.
(ii) Whenever it is recognised that a significant inaccuracy,
misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it
must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
(iii) An apology must be published whenever appropriate.
(iv) Newspapers, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish
clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
(v) A newspaper or periodical must report fairly and accurately
the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been party.
2. OPPORTUNITY TO
REPLY
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given
to individuals or organisations when reasonably called for.
3. *PRIVACY
(i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence. A publication
will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private
life without consent.
(ii) The use of long lens photography to take pictures
of people in private places without their consent is unacceptable.
Note—Private places are public or private property
where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
4. *HARASSMENT
(i) Journalists and photographers must neither obtain
nor seek to obtain information or pictures through intimidation,
harassment or persistent pursuit.
(ii) They must not photograph individuals in private places
(as defined by the note to clause three) without their consent;
must not persist in telephoning, questioning, pursuing or photographing
individuals after having been asked to desist; must not remain
on their property after having been asked to leave and must not
follow them.
(iii) Editors must ensure that those working for them
comply with these requirements and must not publish material from
other sources which does not meet these requirements.
5. INTRUSION INTO
GRIEF OR
SHOCK
In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries must
be carried out and approaches made with sympathy and discretion.
Publication must be handled sensitively at such times but this
should not be interpreted as restricting the right to report judicial
proceedings.
6. *CHILDREN
(i) Young people should be free to complete their time
at school without unnecessary intrusion.
(ii) Journalist must not interview or photograph a child
under the age of 16 on subjects involving the welfare of the child
or any other child in the absence of or without the consent of
a parent or other adult who is responsible for the children.
(iii) Pupils must not be approached or photographed while
at school without the permission of the school authorities.
(iv) There must be no payment to minors for material involving
the welfare of children nor payments to parents or guardians for
material about their children or wards unless it is demonstrably
in the child's interest.
(v) Where material about the private life of a child is
published, there must be justification for publication other than
the fame, notoriety or position of his or her parents or guardian.
7. *CHILDREN IN
SEX CASES
(a) The press must not, even where the law does not prohibit
it, identify children under the age of 16 who are involved in
cases concerning sexual offences under the age of 16 who are involved
in cases concerning sexual offences, whether as victims or as
witnesses.
(b) In any press report of a case involving a sexual
offence against a child
(i) The child must not be identified.
(ii) The adult may be identified.
(iii) The word "incest" must not be used where
a child victim might be identified.
(iv) Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies
the relationship between the accused and the child.
8. *LISTENING DEVICES
Journalist must not obtain or publish material obtained by
using clandestine listening devices or by intercepting private
telephone conversations.
9. *HOSPITALS
(i) Journalists or photographers making enquiries at hospitals
or similar institutions must identify themselves to a responsible
executive and obtain permission before entering non-public areas.
(ii) The restriction on intruding into privacy are particularly
relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar
institutions.
10. *REPORTING OF
CRIME
(i) The press must avoid identifying relatives or friends
of persons convicted or accused of crime without their consent.
(ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially
vulnerable position of children who are witnesses to, or victims
of, crime. This should not be interpreted as restricting the right
to report judicial proceedings.
11. *MISREPRESENTATION
(i) Journalists must not generally obtain or seek to obtain
information or pictures through misrepresentation or subterfuge.
(ii) Documents or photographs should be removed only with
the consent of the owner.
(iii) Subterfuge can be justified only in the public interest
and only when material cannot be obtained by any other means.
12. VICTIMS OF
SEXUAL ASSAULT
The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or
publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless
there is adequate justification and, by law, they are free to
do so.
13. DISCRIMINATION
(i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference
to a person's race, colour, religion, sex or sexual orientation
or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
(ii) It must avoid publishing details of a person's race,
colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness
or disability unless these are directly relevant to the story.
14. FINANCIAL JOURNALISM
(i) Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists
must not use for their own profit financial information they receive
in advance of its general publication, nor should they pass such
information to others.
(ii) They must not write about shares or securities in
whose performance they know that they or their close families
have a significant financial interest without disclosing that
interest to the editor or financial editor.
(iii) They must not buy or sell, either directly or through
nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have
written recently or about which they intend to write in the near
future.
15. CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential
sources of information.
16. PAYMENT FOR
ARTICLES
(i) No payment or offer of payment to a witness—or
any person who pay reasonably be expected to be called as a witness—should
be made in any case once proceedings become active as defined
by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This prohibition lasts until
the suspect has been freed unconditionally by police without charge
or bail; or the proceedings are otherwise discontinued; or has
entered a guilty plea to the court; or, in the event of a not
guilty plea, the court has announced its verdict.
(ii) Where proceedings are not yet active but are
likely and foreseeable, editors must not make or offer payment
to any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a
witness, unless the information concerned ought demonstrably to
be published in the public interest and there is an over-riding
need to make or promise payment for this to be done; and all reasonable
steps have been taken to ensure no financial dealings influence
the evidence those witnesses give. In no circumstances should
such payment be conditional on the outcome of the trial.
(iii) Any payment or offer of payment made to a person
later cited to give evidence in proceedings must be disclosed
to the prosecution and defence. The witness must be advised of
this requirement."
17. *PAYMENT TO
CRIMINALS
Payment of offers of payment for stories, pictures or information,
must not be made directly or through agents to convicted or confessed
criminals or to their associates—who may include family,
friends and colleagues—except where the material concerned
ought to be published in the public interest and payment is necessary
for this to be done.
The public interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they
can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. The public interest
includes:
(i) detecting or exposing a crime or a serious misdemeanour
(ii) Protecting public health and safety
(iii) Preventing the public from being misled by some
statement or action of an individual or organisation.
Annex B
PRESS COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Professor Robert Pinker, Acting Chairman. Professor of Social
Administration, London School of Economics
Matti Alderson, former Director General of the Advertising
Standards Authority; Roger Alton, Editor of The Observer;
Arzina Bhanji, Dental Surgeon and former Director of the Royal
Hospitals NHS Trust; Professor The Lord Chan, Visiting Professor
in Ethnic Health at the University of Liverpool and former member
of the Commission for Racial Equality; Edmund Curran, Editor of
the Belfast Telegraph; Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of the
Daily Mail; Jane Ennis, Editor of News of the World
Magazine; Mary Francis, Director General of the Association
of British Insurers; Dr Arthur Hearnden OBE, former General Secretary
of the Independent Schools Joint Council; Vivien Hepworth, Chairman
of Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust; Paul Horrocks, Editor
of the Manchester Evening News; David Pollington, Editor
of The Sunday Post; The Rt Rev John Waine, Chairman of
the University of Essex Foundation, former Bishop of Chelmsford,
and former Clerk to the Closet of the Queen; Neil Wallis, Deputy
Editor of the News of the World.
APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION
Professor Robert Pinker; Sir Harry Roche, Chairman of the
Press Standards Board of Finance, and Chairman of PA News; Lord
Mayhew of Twysden, QC, former Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland, and former Attorney General; David Clementi, Chairman
of Prudential PLC, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England,
and former Chief Executive and Vice Chairman of Kleinwort Benson;
Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill, Chairman of the Edinburgh Festival
Fringe
PRESS STANDARDS
BOARD OF
FINANCE
Sir Harry Roche, Chairman; A Grahame Thomson OBE CA, Secretary
and Treasurer; The Hon. Jeremy Deedes, Managing Director of the
Telegraph Group Ltd; Clive Milner; Managing Director of Times
Newspapers Ltd; Steve Oram, Director of the Newspaper Publishers
Association; Robin Burgess, Chief Executive of CN Group Ltd; T
Bowdler, Chief Executive of Johnston Press PLC; David Newell,
Director of The Newspaper Society; Robin Miller; Chairman of EMAP
PLC; Ian Locks, Director of Periodical Publishers Association;
J Raeburn FCIS, Director of the Scottish Newspaper Publishers
Assoication
CODE COMMITTEE
Les Hinton, Chairman of News International; Perry Austin-Clarke,
Bradford Telegraph and Argus; James Bishop, Illustrated
London News; Mike Gilson, The News (Portsmouth); Sue
James, Woman and Home; Tom Loxley, Maxim; Doug Melloy, Rotheram
and South Yorkshire Advertiser; Charles Moore, Daily Telegraph;
Ian Murray, Southern Daily Echo; Paul Potts, Press Association;
Anita Syvret, Gloucestershire Echo; Derek Tucker, Press and Journal;
Neil Wallis, News of the World; Chris Williams, The
Daily Express; John Witherow, The Sunday Times.
20 March 2003
|
