APPENDIX 73
Memorandum submitted Mr Christopher Hutchings,
Charles Russell Solicitors
I have received a request from the Press Complaints
Committee to write to you in the context of an inquiry into the
PCC, in relation to the protection it affords to members of the
public in respect of invasions into their privacy. I apologise
if this letter is slightly late; this is because I am in the middle
of the privacy action currently being brought by Michael Douglas
against one of my clients, Hello! magazine.
First of all, by way of background, I have acted
for several years as solicitor for a number of major publishers,
in particular of magazines. I also represent individuals and organisations.
I have accordingly very considerable experience of the PCC from
both perspectives; that is, both where clients have faced complaints
and also where it has been necessary for clients to complain to
the PCC.
Further, I have had experience of complaints
about invasions of privacy brought against publishing clients
both upheld and rejected. I will give one or two illustrations
of my experiences in a moment.
First, if I explain that I am a Partner in the
above firm, having previously trained, qualified and ultimately
become a Partner in the firm of Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners.
I have spent the past 12 years acting for and against the media.
Much of this time has been spent dealing with libel litigation
but, since the reforms to the civil procedure, I have, I believe
in common with other lawyers in this area, found that an increasingly
significant proportion of my time is spent handling complaints
without this resulting in litigation. Also, there has been an
increased awareness on the part of the public of their rights
of privacy, in particular since the enactment in October 2000
of the Human Rights Act 1988.
Turning to my specific experience of dealing
with complaints to the PCC one of my clients, Hello!, has
had two complaints made against it in recent times, brought to
the PCC. The first was brought by a private individual who sold
her property to the actress Kate Winslet. My client obtained photographs
of the property and published a piece which might have suggested
that the previous owner provided the pictures herself. The PCC
dealt very promptly with the complaint and after finding in favour
of the complainant, Hello! published in the next issue
a prominent apology to the complainant, referring to her successful
complaint to the PCC, to the complete satisfaction of the complainant.
The alternative to this course would have been for the complainant
to try to bring legal proceedings of very uncertain outcome. So
far as I am aware, the complainant was not particularly wealthy
and, even if successful, lengthy and costly legal proceedings
would likely have meant that she would only have obtained redress
after many months.
The next complaint was made by the Actress,
Alex Kingston, to the PCC. She complained primarily under Clause
3 of the PCC Code (Privacy), saying that photographs published
in Hello! of her, with her children, in a public street
were an invasion of her privacy. On this occasion, we argued forcefully
that the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy,
given that she was outside, in a public place. The PCC, however,
required a thorough investigation, by way of exchange of correspondence
(from this firm and from solicitors acting for the complainant)
and it was only after we had completely satisfied the PCC that
our assertions were correct that the PCC rejected the complaint.
One final, and most recent, illustration of
the manner in which the PCC has adjudicated on a matter on which
I have been directly involved relates to a complaint made by another
client of this firm, Westminster Abbey, who were very unhappy
with an article in The Mail on Sunday. Although the complaint
did not relate to privacy (it related to accuracy), I was extremely
impressed by the manner in which the PCC resolved the complaint.
The newspaper had flatly refused to publish any sort of correction,
maintaining that its piece was overwhelmingly accurate. The PCC
first sought prompt clarification by both parties of their respective
positions and, when it became apparent to the PCC that there was
a genuine cause for a complaint, it mediated between the parties
so that an acceptable form of wording was agreed. This was then
published, to the complainant's satisfaction, in The Mail on
Sunday. The complaint was resolved, therefore, amicably and
swiftly. The alternative, which I would in the past have been
more likely to pursue, would have been to bring libel proceedings.
If that had been the case, I am in no doubt that the parties positions
would have become entrenched and a huge amount of time and money
would have been expended, possibly only to arrive at almost exactly
the same results.
3 February 2003
|
