APPENDIX 54
Memorandum submitted by Channel 4, Channel
Five and ITV Network Limited
PRIVACY AND MEDIA INTRUSION
1. INTRODUCTION
Channel 4, Five and ITV Network Limited are
the three terrestrial networks regulated by the Independent Television
Commission (ITC). The three networks have decided to submit evidence
jointly to this inquiry as we have similar experience of how the
regulation of programme content works in practice.
In this evidence we examine the relevant legal
and regulatory framework within which UK broadcasting operates,
has operated over the last 10 years, is scrutinised at present
and will continue to conduct itself and be scrutinised.
The fundamental starting point in any democratic
society is to ensure that regulators, legislators and the judiciary
recognise and protect the right of all individuals to receive
information, ideas and creative material, including material of
a journalistic, artistic, and creative nature and the right of
those making and broadcasting it to impart such material. Correspondingly,
in a democratic society there must also be adequate and due protection
for the privacy rights of individuals. We believe that for the
most part the current legal and regulatory framework strikes the
correct balance between these competing rights. Further we believe
it is vital that in future, Ofcom continues to strike the correct
balance: by setting out clear principles to be observed by broadcasters
prior to the transmission of programmes which both protect freedom
of expression and give due regard to personal privacy rights;
and by dealing fairly with complaints from individuals following
a programme's broadcast.
As broadcasters, we have every desire to act
responsibly and not to infringe people's privacy unless it is
clearly in the public interest. At the same time we wish to make—and
it is in the audience's interests that we make—a wide range
of programmes that inform and entertain, and we recognise that
sometimes fine judgements need to be made when striking the balance
between freedom of expression and the right to privacy.
2. CURRENT LEGAL
FRAMEWORK
2.1 The Human Rights Act 1998, ("HRA")
Whilst not all broadcasters will be considered
to be "public authorities" by the courts when applying
the HRA, we are all subject to the statutory and common law principles
relating to privacy. The HRA for the first time incorporated the
principles and rights contained in the European Convention on
Human Rights ("ECHR") directly into UK law.
The two most significant of these are the potentially
competing rights contained in Article 10, which guarantees the
right to freedom of expression, and in Article 8, which enshrines
the right to respect for private and family life.
ARTICLE 10—FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom
of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions
and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference
by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article
shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,
television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since
it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject
to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as
are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society,
in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or
public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation
or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information
received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality
of the judiciary"
ARTICLE 8—RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE
AND FAMILY LIFE
"1. Everyone has the right to respect
for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except as is in accordance
with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security, public safety or the economic well-being
of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others."
Section 12 of the HRA sets out the criteria
which a court must consider in granting relief which might affect
the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression.
Section 12 (4) states:
"The Court must have particular
regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of
expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which
the respondent claims, or which appears to the Court, to be journalistic,
literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such
material), to—
(i) Material has, or is about to, become
available to the public; or
(ii) It is, or would be, in the public interest
for the material to be published:
(b) Any relevant privacy code."
Under the HRA a public authority, which will
certainly include media regulators and may include all or some
broadcasters, must act in accordance with Convention rights, abiding
by their principles and acting in accordance with the terms of
the HRA itself. A Court, as a public authority itself, must also
ensure that Convention rights are appropriately protected. Clearly
the most difficult cases in this area arise where there is a conflict
between Article 8 and Article 10 rights and a broadcaster, regulator
or a court, or perhaps all three, may be required to decide how
the correct balance should be struck.
At the time of submitting this evidence none
of the decisions in the UK courts which have decided privacy issues
and in which the HRA has been applied have involved the making
or broadcast of television programmes.
2.2 Other areas of "privacy" legislation
There are a number of recent statutes which
have sought to protect and enshrine personal privacy rights whilst
permitting the broadcast media to properly investigate and report
on matters of public interest. Such statutes include the Protection
from Harassment Act 1997 and the Data Protection Act 1998. The
Protection from Harassment Act predates the enactment of the HRA
but all statutes must, of themselves and in their interpretation,
comply with the HRA. The Data Protection Act, like the HRA, lists
compliance with media codes as a factor which the Courts must
take into account when considering where the balance lies between
competing Article 8 and Article 10 rights.
3. CURRENT REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
All UK broadcasters including the BBC, commercial
terrestrial channels, cable and satellite broadcasters and radio
stations are subject to the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Standards
Commission ("BSC"). In accordance with Sections 107
and 108 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 the BSC issues two Codes
of Guidance, one dealing with privacy and fairness and the other
with standards in programmes. The BBC regulates itself under its
Producer Guidelines while all commercial licensees including the
ITV licensees, Channel 4, Five and BSkyB, are regulated additionally
by the Independent Television Commission ("ITC"). The
ITC's Programme Code contains very similar provisions to the BBC's
Producer Guidelines. The ITC is obliged by the same two sections
of the Broadcasting Act 1996 "to reflect the general effect"
of the BSC's Codes in its Programme Code. We attach a copy of
the BSC's Fairness and Privacy Code, Annex 1 (not printed).
In this document the BSC and ITC Codes will be referred to as
"the Codes".
3.1 The ITC
The ITC, under the Broadcasting Act 1996, has
wide-ranging powers of sanction against broadcasters in the event
that it judges its Codes to have been breached. This jurisdiction
applies to all commercial licensees, effectively all of UK television
apart from the BBC, which regulates itself under its own Producer
Guidelines and through the Governors and also falls under the
BSC's jurisdiction.
The ITC Programme Code contains detailed provisions
which set out principles relating to personal privacy. We attach
a copy of the Code at Annex 2 (not printed). The areas
specifically subject to detailed rules include the use of secret
filming and recording, fairness in the conduct of interviews,
filming on police operations, filming in institutions, filming
at times of distress, filming of interviews without prior arrangement
("doorstep interviews"), "set-up" situations
in comedy programmes, the involvement of children in programmes
and fairness in factual dramas.
Prior to the Broadcasting Act 1990, the commercial
services, now licensed by the ITC, were monitored by the Independent
Broadcasting Authority ("IBA"). The IBA had wide-ranging
powers of preview and its codes of practice contained rules relating
to privacy and the gathering of information.
The ITC Programme Code was recently reviewed
and re-issued in January 2002 after wide-ranging consultation
with broadcasters and other interested parties. The ITC, in this
Code and in the way it applies it, endeavours to strike a balance
between broadcasters' freedom of expression, viewers' rights to
receive material and the rights of individuals to appropriate
levels of privacy protection.
Broadcasting legislation gives the ITC significant
powers of sanction if it considers that its Codes have been transgressed.
All licensees must, under their individual licences from the ITC
have adequate and effective procedures to ensure compliance with
its Codes and with the law.
The ITC's powers of sanction include being able
to direct a broadcaster to apologise on air, not to repeat a programme,
to pay a substantial fine (up to 5% of its qualifying revenue)
and, in extreme circumstances, to shorten or even revoke a broadcaster's
licence. The ITC has not hesitated to impose substantial fines
where it has found a broadcaster to have been in serious breach
of the Code. However, these instances have tended not to involve
privacy but rather to relate to allegations of programme fakery
and commercial references in programmes. Indeed, we are not aware
of the ITC ever imposing a sanction on any broadcaster for a Code
breach involving a privacy issue.
The ITC's potential sanctions are all capable
of amounting to very serious interferences with freedom of expression
rights and, as a consequence, great care must be taken in its
adjudication procedures. Broadcasters have sought to ensure that
our regulators act strictly in accordance with principles of natural
justice, both in considering and entertaining complaints and particularly
in deciding whether it is necessary to impose a sanction and the
level of any such sanction.
3.2 Broadcasting Standards Commission
The Broadcasting Standards Commission ("BSC")
was created by the Broadcasting Act 1996, which merged the Broadcasting
Standards Council (with its solely standards jurisdiction) and
the Broadcasting Complaints Commission ("BCC"). The
latter body was established by the Broadcasting Act 1981 to entertain
and consider complaints from individuals affected by alleged unfair
treatment or an unwarranted infringement of their privacy. The
jurisdiction of today's BSC on fairness and privacy issues is
much the same as that set out in the 1981 Act for the old BCC.
A complainant must have a sufficiently direct interest under the
statute in order to have a complaint entertained.
In its earlier years, broadcasters frequently
complained that the BCC did not operate fair and transparent procedures
and did not adequately protect freedom of expression rights. Broadcasters
believed that the BCC interpreted its jurisdiction to entertain
complaints too widely and was all too often a refuge for "rogues"
who had been the unwelcome focus of a programme makers' attention.
Following changes in the Broadcasting Acts of
1990 and 1996, hiring of staff and Commission members conversant
with programme making and broadcasting and a timely response to
the introduction and enactment of the HRA, the BSC has significantly
improved its procedures. Whilst broadcasters will not always agree
with the BSC's adjudications, most would concur that its procedures
are, by and large, open and fair and that the BSC has provided
a useful, quick, accessible and cheap forum for an individual
to have his or her case of alleged privacy infringement or unfairness
heard and determined.
Unlike the ITC, the BSC does not have draconian
powers of sanction. If it upholds a complaint then it may publish
its findings in a regular bulletin and on its website. It may
direct a broadcaster to publish a summary of its adjudication
on air and in a publication of the complainant's choice. There
is currently no provision for a financial sanction or to require
a broadcaster not to repeat a programme. Broadcasters are obliged
under the Broadcasting Act 1996 to make annual reports to the
ITC of any supplementary action taken as a consequence of an upheld
BSC adjudication and, in practice, broadcasters have either not
repeated or have re-edited programmes where an adverse fairness
or privacy finding has been made.
3.3 Ofcom
The Communications Bill will effectively preserve
the BSC's jurisdiction to entertain, hear and determine privacy
and fairness complaints under Ofcom. However, it is proposed that
complaints which have been upheld are capable of being the subject
of penalties very similar to the current powers of sanction operated
by the ITC.
In the run up to Ofcom, the ITC and BSC have
been operating a system to streamline the complaints process and
the ITC has referred fairness and privacy complaints falling within
the jurisdiction of the BSC to that body to avoid a risk of "double
jeopardy", ie a decision being made on the same facts by
two separate regulators. In the past this has lead to anomalies
with, on a number of occasions, regulators reaching opposing decisions
that lead to confusion and unfairness for complainant and broadcaster
alike.
4. HOW BROADCASTERS
OPERATE UNDER
THE STATUTORY
CODES
Broadcasters take their responsibilities to
viewers and those who participate in their programmes very seriously.
All broadcasters operate sophisticated procedures to ensure compliance
with the ITC and BSC rules and good ethical practice. In addition
they also:
— Issue compliance manuals and written
procedures for particular programmes and programme areas to producers
and editorial staff.
— Carry out regular training for commissioning
editors and programme makers on all compliance issues including
privacy.
— Operate careful procedures for the
consideration of complaints made directly to a broadcaster both
before and after transmission of a programme.
We attach to this submission, Annexes 3-7 inclusive,
tables which set out the number of privacy/fairness complaints
made against Channel 4, the ITV companies, Five and the BBC over
the last 10 years. These figures include complaints made to the
ITC about privacy which may or may not have fallen under the BSC's
or BCC's statutory remit. Before the 1990 Broadcasting Act the
BCC habitually entertained complaints which broadcasters often
felt did not properly fall within its jurisdiction. This has rarely
been a concern in the last five to 10 years. Moreover, a number
of complaints will be about unfair treatment, for example fairness
in editing an interview or factual accuracy and so not fall within
the legal definition of a privacy issue under the principles of
Article 8.
These figures show that very few complaints
are made to our regulators about privacy matters and even fewer
of those are upheld. In the last 10 years, the regulators have
entertained just 178 complaints on privacy grounds about programmes
on all three of our channels; and of these only 52 have been upheld
in whole and only 43 have been upheld in part.
In other words, on three channels, each broadcasting
24 hours a day (and in the case of ITV with regional variations
of several hours each day), the average number of privacy complaints
has been fewer than 18 each year, of which slightly over half
have been upheld in whole or in part.
We believe that these figures demonstrate that
broadcasters act responsibly and that the present system of statutory
regulation works. We believe it is vital, in order to effectively
preserve freedom of expression and respect personal privacy rights,
that there is a clear statutory remit for a regulator to issue
appropriate codes of practice to guide broadcasters in the run-up
to transmission of a programme and to provide a forum for complainants'
privacy concerns to be considered following its transmission.
In recent years the BSC has introduced a new
category to its complaints process, that of "Resolved Complaints".
This was to recognise that a broadcaster will, once alerted to
an issue, such as a privacy complaint, take appropriate steps
itself if it judges that a complainant's concerns have merit.
On occasion, a broadcaster may inadvertently infringe an individual's
right to privacy and this can be quickly and effectively dealt
with by way of an apology and a promise not to repeat the offending
material. It is our experience that in most cases this will satisfy
a complainant. If a complaint can be resolved quickly and simply
then this is in the interests of the broadcaster, the complainant
and the regulator. However, if no accommodation can be reached
the BSC provides a quick and cheap way for a lay complainant to
have their complaint aired before an independent tribunal generally
culminating in a hearing. We welcome the continuation of such
a process, provided that Article 10 rights are adequately protected
through the operation of a transparent, fair procedure and the
appointment of commissioners and staff who are conversant with
the making and broadcasting of programmes.
5. EXAMPLES OF
AREAS OF
PROGRAMME MAKING
WHERE PRIVACY
RIGHTS ARE
PROTECTED
5.1 Secret Filming and Recording
Covert filming and recording is a powerful journalistic
tool which has been employed many times over the years by broadcasters
acting in the public interest to expose crime, wrong-doing and
anti-social behaviour. As technology allows ever more sophisticated
intrusions through covert methods it is even more important that
television journalists and broadcasters operate within clear safeguards
to ensure that privacy is adequately protected. Both the ITC and
BSC Codes contain strict criteria which must be fulfilled before
covert filming or recording may take place and before material
obtained covertly is broadcast. Such activity must be, under Section
2.4 of the ITC Programme Code "essential to establish the
credibility and authority of a story where this cannot, or is
unlikely to be achieved using `open' filming or recording techniques,
and where the story itself is equally clearly of important public
interest".
Consent to film secretly and to broadcast any
covertly filmed material must be obtained from the licensee's
most senior editorial executive. Licensees are required to keep
detailed written records of applications to film covertly and
to transmit such material. This can include details of the proposed
subjects, the prima facie evidence for believing that secret filming
is justified and details of the methods proposed to ensure that
the privacy of individuals is not unwarrantably infringed—in
other words, that the level of intrusion can be justified by it
being "clearly of important public interest". Once secretly
recorded material has been obtained it must be subjected to the
test set out in Section 2.4 of the ITC Programme Code before it
is transmitted. This means that there is a rigorous two stage
process where the decision both to obtain material covertly and
to broadcast it must be justified and decided at the most senior
level in a broadcaster. Particular care is taken before transmission
in considering the footage to be broadcast to ensure that innocent
third parties do not have their privacy unwarrantably infringed.
5.2 "Set-up" Situations
Since the early days of Candid Camera broadcasters
have filmed pranks on members of the public without their knowledge
or prior warning. Such techniques are an established part of some
entertainment programmes. However, the Codes require broadcasters
to employ adequate safeguards to prevent unwarranted invasions
of privacy, which include obtaining the full consent of subjects
prior to broadcast or concealing their identities in the programme.
5.3 "Doorstep" Interviews
The Codes acknowledge that impromptu interviews
with public figures and people in the news are a normal part of
newsgathering. Again, the Codes contain detailed provision on
ensuring that privacy is not invaded through the use of such a
technique, making broadcasters aware of enhanced privacy rights
in individual's homes, at churches or other places where a subject
might reasonably expect personal privacy.
5.4 Factual Programmes
Great care is taken by broadcasters where a
factual programme could impact on people's privacy particularly
where they have suffered a traumatic event or bereavement. In
particular the Codes contain rules about the use of archive of
tragic events and their later use or reuse in relevant programmes.
These rules are designed to protect the privacy of individuals,
particularly where they are innocently caught up in events beyond
their control.
5.5 Factual Dramas
So-called `drama documentaries' perform a valuable
role in bringing to public attention tragedies and scandals such
as the Harold Shipman murders and the deaths of child heart patients
at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. Again, the Codes governing the
making and broadcasting of programmes contain requirements on
programme makers and broadcasters to consult with affected parties
and to ensure that their views and perspectives are adequately
respected (see section 2.12, ITC Programme Code). For example,
in making Innocents, Peter Kosminsky's factual drama about the
tragic events at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, Channel 4 obtained
the consent of all families named or featured in the film. Hundreds
of bereaved parents throughout the country were consulted during
the scripting and filming process and given the opportunity to
see the programme prior to transmission even if it did not mention
their child's name or case. Whilst sensitivity is vital in this
area it is equally important that broadcasters should be free
to make responsible programmes on stories of public interest and
importance, even where this may be the subject of some opposition.
5.6 Filming on Police Operations
The Codes require programme makers filming with
the police to identify themselves as filming on behalf of a particular
licensee and to withdraw if requested by the individual. Broadcasters
have to consider whether or not they can justify identifying those
who have been the subject of police raids.
CONCLUSION
There is an elaborate and sophisticated statutory
framework governing the ways in which television programmes are
made. Broadcasters have a clear understanding of their responsibilities,
while the regulators recognise the need both to protect freedom
of expression and adequately safeguard the privacy of individuals.
It is clear from the evidence and experience of the last ten years
that there are very few occasions when broadcasters have seriously
invaded the privacy of individuals without a proper and adequate
justification. Therefore, it is apparent that the current regulations
and the manner in which they are applied have worked well for
both broadcasters and individuals. As such there is no legitimate
reason for the current system to be changed and we hope it will
be continued when Ofcom assumes its responsibilities.
17 February 2003
LIST OF ANNEXES
1. Broadcasting Standards Commission Code
of Guidance—Fairness and Privacy (not printed).
2. Independent Television Commission Programme
Code (not printed).
3. Analysis of privacy complaints made and
those upheld against Channel 4 (1993-2002 inclusive).
4. Analysis of privacy complaints made and
those upheld against ITV companies (1993-2002 inclusive).
5. Analysis of privacy complaints made and
those upheld against Five (1997-2002 inclusive).
6. Analysis of privacy complaints made and
those upheld against BBC (1993-2002 inclusive), BSC only.
7. Summary analysis of complaints detailed
in Annexes 3-6.
Annex 3
Fairness/Privacy complaints made against
Channel 4 1993-2002
BSC
| Year | Upheld
| Upheld in part | Not Upheld
| Total | Number of which Privacy
|
| | |
| | |
| BCC*(April-March) | |
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| 1993-1994 | 1 | 5
| 7 (2 stla) | 13 | 2 (1 upheld in part)
|
| 1994-1995 | 2 | 6
| 8 | 16 | 11 (2 upheld; 5 upheld in part)
|
| 1995-1996 | 2 | 1
| 2 | 5 | 1 (not upheld)
|
| 1996-1997 | 2 | 1
| 5 | 9 | 3 (1 upheld)
|
| BSC** | | |
| | |
| 1997-1998 (April-March) | 2 |
1 | 2 | 5 | 3 (none upheld)
|
| 1998 (April-end of year) | 0 |
3 | 3 | 6 | 1 (upheld in part)
|
| 1999 | 5 | 0 |
5 | 10 | 3 (2 upheld)
|
| 2000 | 0 | 2 |
5 | 7 | 2 (none upheld)
|
| 2001 | 2 | 1 |
5 | 8 | 3 (1 upheld)
|
| 2002 | 0 | 1 |
5 | 6 | 2 (none upheld)
|
| Total | 16 | 21
| 48 | 84 | |
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld = 6
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld in Part = 7
ITC***
| Year | Upheld |
Upheld in part | Not Upheld
| Total | Number of which Privacy
|
| 1993 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1994 | 1 | 0 |
1 | 2 | 1 (not upheld)
|
| 1995 | 4 | 0 |
1 | 5 | 3 (upheld)
|
| 1996 | 2 | 0 |
0 | 2 | 1 (upheld)
|
| 1997 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 1 | 0 |
| 1998 | 1 | 0 |
0 | 1 | 0 |
| 1999 | 2 | 0 |
0 | 2 | 1 (upheld)
|
| 2000 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 1 | 1 (upheld in part)
|
| 2001 | 0 | 0 |
1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 | |
| Total | 10 | 2
| 3 | 15 | |
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld = 5
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld in Part = 1
* BCC = Broadcasting Complaints Commission
** BSC = Broadcasting Standards Commission
*** ITC = Independent Television Commission
Annex 4
Fairness/Privacy complaints made against ITV 1993-20021
BSC
| Year | Upheld |
Upheld in part | Not Upheld
| Total | Number of which Privacy
|
| BCC* | | |
| | |
| (April-March) 1993-94 | 3 |
4 | 19 | 26 | 7 (1 upheld; 1 upheld in part; 5 not upheld)
|
| 1994-95 | 1 | 6
| 17 | 24 | 14 (2 upheld in part; 12 not upheld)
|
| 1995-96 | 7 | 15
| 7 | 29 | 15 (4 upheld; 8 upheld in part; 3 not upheld)
|
| 1996-97 | 8 | 7
| 8 | 23 | 16 (6 upheld; 5 upheld in part; 5 not upheld)
|
| 1997-98 | 10 | 6
| 13 | 29 | 16 (5 upheld; 1 upheld in part; 10 not upheld)
|
| BSC** | | |
| | |
| 1998 (April—end of yr) | 8
| 7 | 13 | 28 |
10 (2 upheld; 2 upheld in part; 6 not upheld) |
| 1999 | 5 | 9 |
13 | 27 | 13 (3 upheld; 6 upheld in part; 4 not upheld)
|
| 2000 | 6 | 7 |
7 | 20 | 13 (3 upheld; 4 upheld in part; 6 not upheld)
|
| 2001 | 4 | 5 |
10 | 19 | 6 (1 upheld; 1 upheld in part; 4 not upheld)
|
| 2002 | 4 | 3 |
12 | 19 | 9 (2 upheld; 1 upheld in part; 6 not upheld)
|
| Total (1993-2002) | 56 |
| 69 | 119 | 244
|
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld = 27
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld in Part = 31
ITC***
| Year | Upheld |
Upheld in part | Not Upheld
| Total | Number of which Privacy
|
| 1993 | 0 | 0 |
1 | 1 | 0 |
| 1994 | 3 | 0 |
1 | 4 | 3 upheld
|
| 1995 | 3 | 0 |
0 | 3 | 2 upheld
|
| 1996 | 4 | 2 |
1 | 7 | 7 (4 upheld, 2 upheld in part, 1 not upheld)
|
| 1997 | 0 | 2 |
1 | 3 | 2 upheld in part
|
| 1998 | 1 | 0 |
1 | 2 | 0 |
| 1999 | 1 | 0 |
1 | 2 | 1 upheld
|
| 2000 | 2 | 0 |
0 | 2 | 1 upheld
|
| 2001 | 2 | 1 |
1 | 4 | 1 upheld
|
| 2002 | 1 | 0 |
0 | 1 | 1 upheld
|
| Total | 17 | 5
| 7 | 29 | 18 (13 upheld, 4 upheld in part, 1 not upheld)
|
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld = 13
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld in Part = 4
1 These figures represent the total number of complaints made
against the 15 separate ITV companies for nationally networked,
regional and sub-regional programmes broadcast on Channel 3
* BCC = Broadcasting Complaints Commission
** BSC = Broadcasting Standards Commisson
*** ITC = Independent Television Commission
Annex 5
Fairness/Privacy complaints made against Five 1997-2002*
BSC
| Year | Upheld |
Upheld in part | Not Upheld
| Total | Number of which Privacy
|
| 1997 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1998 | 0 | 0 |
1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1999 | 1 | 0 |
0 | 1 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 | 0 |
1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 | 0 |
1 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 1 | 0 |
3 | 4 | 2 |
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld = 0
ITC
| Year | Upheld |
Upheld in part | Not Upheld
| Total | Number of which Privacy
|
| 1997 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1998 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 1 | 0 |
| 1999 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2001 | 1 | 0 |
0 | 1 | 1 |
| 2002 | 0 | 0 |
1 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 1 | 1 |
1 | 3 | 1 |
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld = 1
*Channel 5 (now known as Five) started broadcasting in March 1997.
Annex 6
Fairness/Privacy complaints made to BSC against BCC
1993-2002
| Year | Upheld |
Upheld in part | Not Upheld
| Total | Number of which Privacy
|
| BCC* | | |
| | |
| (April-March) 1993-94 | 4 |
13 | 9 | 26 | 2 (1 upheld, 1 upheld
|
| in part) | |
| | | |
| 1994-95 | 2 | 12
| 11 | 25 | 2 (1 upheld, 1 not upheld)
|
| 1995-96 | 6 | 4
| 10 | 20 | 6 (2 upheld, 2 upheld in part; 2 not upheld)
|
| 1996-97 | 6 | 7
| 9 | 22 | 5 (1 upheld, 2 upheld in part; 2 not upheld)
|
| 1997-98 | 14 | 7
| 25 | 46 | 17 (8 upheld, 1 upheld in part; 8 not upheld)
|
| BSC** | | |
| | |
| 1998 | 8 | 6 |
9 | 23 | 5 (4 upheld, 1 not upheld)
|
| 1999 | 7 | 3 |
2 | 33 | 11 (2 upheld, 1 upheld in part; 8 not upheld)
|
| 2000 | 3 | 5 |
11 | 19 | 7 (3 upheld in part, 4 not upheld)
|
| 2001 | 6 | 5 |
10 | 21 | 3 (1 upheld in part, 2 not upheld)
|
| 2002 | 1 | 5 |
18 | 24 | 7 (1 upheld, 3 upheld in part; 3 not upheld)
|
| Total (1993-2002) | 57 | 67
| 135 | 259 | |
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld = 19
Total Privacy Complaints Upheld in Part = 15
Annex 7
7.1 Summary of all Privacy complaints on Terrestrial
Television Considered 1993-2002
| Upheld | Upheld in part
| Not Upheld | Total
|
| Privacy complaints against Channel 4 considered by the ITC
| 5 | 1 | 1 |
7 |
| Privacy complaints against Five considered by the ITC
| 1 | — | —
| 1 |
| Privacy complaints against ITV licensees considered by the ITC
| 13 | 4 | 1
| 18 |
| ITC Sub-Total | 19 | 5
| 2 | 26 |
| Privacy complaints against Channel 4 considered by the BSC/BCC
| 6 | 7 | 18
| 31 |
| Privacy complaints against Five considered by the BSC
| — | — | 2
| 2 |
| Privacy complaints against ITV licensees considered by the BSC/BCC
| 27 | 31 | 61
| 119 |
| Privacy complaints against the BBC considered by the BSC/BCC
| 19 | 15 | 31
| 65 |
| BSC/BCC Sub-Total | 52 |
53 | 112 | 217 |
| Total (ITC & BCC/BSC) | 71
| 58 | 114 | 243
|
| Total excluding BBC | 52 |
43 | 83 | 178 |
7.2 Privacy complaints considered each year by
BCC/BSC—C4, ITV, FIVE, BBC
| Upheld | Upheld in part
| Not Upheld | Total
|
| 1993-94 | 2 | 3
| 6 | 11 |
| 1994-95 | 2 | 8
| 17 | 27 |
| 1995-96 | 6 | 10
| 6 | 22 |
| 1996-97 | 8 | 7
| 9 | 24 |
| 1997-98 | 13 | 2
| 21 | 36 |
| 1998* | 6 | 3
| 8 | 17 |
| 1999 | 7 | 7
| 13 | 27 |
| 2000 | 3 | 7
| 12 | 22 |
| 2001 | 2 | 2
| 8 | 12 |
| 2002 | 3 | 4
| 12 | 19 |
| Total | 52 | 53
| 112 | 217 |
*Nine months only (April—December)
7.3 Privacy complaints considered each year by
ITC—C4, ITV, FIVE
| Upheld | Upheld in Part
| Not Upheld | Total |
| 1993 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 |
| 1994 | 3 | 0
| 1 | 4 |
| 1995 | 5 | 0
| 0 | 5 |
| 1996 | 5 | 2
| 1 | 8 |
| 1997 | 0 | 2
| 0 | 2 |
| 1998 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 |
| 1999 | 2 | 0
| 0 | 2 |
| 2000 | 1 | 1
| 0 | 2 |
| 2001 | 2 | 0
| 0 | 2 |
| 2002 | 1 | 0
| 0 | 1 |
| Total | 19 | 5
| 2 | 26 |
| 
