Written evidence submitted by Professor
Chris Frost
THE PCC AND
PRIVACY
The PCC claims that it is a "modern, flexible
organisation designed to keep the quality of UK journalism high
in the digital age. It demonstrates using real cases, how we help
put things right when the inevitable mistakes are made."
(PCC annual report 2007: P2)
The Press Complaints Commission, Britain's press
regulatory body, received 4,340 complaints in 2007. This number
has increased steadily since 1991. Of these an average of 12.34%
concern privacy.
However, whilst the majority of complaints concern
accuracy, it is fair to say that the complaints that really concern
society are about intrusion, discrimination, children and privacy.
It is also fair to day that the PCC is not good at dealing with
complaints on matters of fact or accuracy.
The PCC adjudicates only a tiny fraction of
the complaints it receives—2.18% (52 per year on average)
over its full 18 years of work, but only 0.83% (30.6) for the
last five years. Not only does it adjudicate on very few, but
this number is steadily reducing.
The PCC justifies this by saying it resolves
a lot of cases and that this is a better approach.
However it is difficult to accept that when
one looks at the type of cases resolved. Most should have been
handled instantly by the editor concerned as they are the kind
of factual errors that inevitably creep into a pressured newsroom
and should be sorted out with a correction or apology almost as
quickly.
The PCC resolves an average of 191 (6.28%) complaints
a year, although this increases to 289 (10.4%) for the last five
years thanks to two bumper years.
Resolutions, however, mainly concern accuracy,
with 97.5% of all resolved cases including complaints about accuracy.
12.2% of resolved cases were about privacy, usually alongside
accuracy. Whilst these were resolved it is likely that the complainant
felt they had little option other than to accept the resolution
offered. Adjudication—the only other option would have meant
reminding people about the very invasion they had wanted to keep
private.
Although the PCC says that privacy complaints
represent 12.34% of all complaints made, the percentage of privacy
cases amongst adjudicated cases rises to 32.9%. However, very
few of these are upheld—only 21.8% of privacy adjudications
were upheld—a total of 14. All the other complaints were
rejected or resolved.
ADJUDICATED PRIVACY CASES
Year | adjudicated
privacy case
|
upheld | Rejected or
otherwise resolved
|
| 2004 | 18 | 1
| 17 |
| 2005 | 6 | 1
| 5 |
| 2006 | 14 | 4
| 10 |
| 2007 | 12 | 5
| 7 |
| 2008 | 14 | 3
| 11 |
| |
| |
Of course that might be appropriate; however, taking the
PCC's figures on the number of complaints made, an average of
408 complaints about privacy are made each year, yet only an average
48 are resolved and just 12 adjudicated with fewer than three
of those adjudications being upheld.
However despite the tiny numbers and the clear attempt to avoid
setting precedents, the PCC has had to make some judgements and
although all the attention has been on the courts, some of their
judgements have been interesting.
Several cases of people whose homes were raided by the police
with the press on hand, were found to have had their privacy invaded,
especially when video was posted on the websites.
A businessman whose secret internet sex chat was exposed
by his partner was also found to have suffered an intrusion into
privacy.
The PCC found that a child's video of her unruly maths class
that was published on a paper's website also constituted an intrusion.
Excessive published detail in several suicides was also condemned.
In another case, the PCC was concerned about the publication
of pictures taken of a woman receiving medical treatment after
a road accident, although it made no finding here.
However a Mosley-style expose about the sexual activities
of a female ambulance officer in a Sunday tabloid was not upheld
and was said to be in the public interest.
Very few cases of the sort that reach the High Court have
come to the PCC and it is clear that as far as privacy is concerned,
if your privacy has been invaded and you have money, you should
go to court; if you are poor, then just try to forget all about
it. All the PCC can do is ask the paper to print a reminder of
your shame to any who have forgotten or perhaps did not see it
in the first place.
March 2009
| 
