Decision of the Complaints Committee 04324-19 Macdonald v
Evening Telegraph (Dundee)
Summary of Complaint
1. Ian Macdonald complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Evening Telegraph (Dundee) breached Clause 2
(Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ambulance
called for ‘slumped’ man in Dundee city centre” published on 14 May 2019.
2. The article reported that an unnamed man had been found
unresponsive in Dundee city centre, and included a photograph which showed
this; the man was slumped on a bench, with his face in his lap. The image was
not pixelated and the photograph appeared to be taken from a distance of
approximately 15 feet away from the man.
3. The article reported that it was believed that the man had
been drinking heavily and that onlookers had called an ambulance – when two
ambulances and a police car arrived, he was escorted to one of the ambulances
for further treatment. The article included a quote from the person who called
the ambulance, who said that he had been concerned for the man’s welfare, and
was surprised that other passers-by had not stopped to help. The person quoted
also said that it was not the first time he had seen something like this in
Dundee, and that he suspected the man had been under the influence of alcohol
or drugs. The article included a confirmation from the police and ambulance
staff that they had attended, and reported that it was understood that the man
did not require hospital treatment.
4. The article appeared online in substantially the same form
as the print version.
5. The complainant was the man pictured in the article, and
was represented by his mother in making his complaint to IPSO. He said that the
publication of the photograph which showed him in an unresponsive state was an
intrusion into his privacy. He noted that he was unaware that the photograph
was being taken, and did not consent to it being published. In addition, he
said that family and friends had identified him from the article, which caused
them much distress. His mother said that her son had longstanding personal
problems, and there was no justification in publishing this image – although
they recognised that Dundee had issues with alcohol and drug abuse, the
publication of this photograph was not necessary to highlight these problems.
6. The publication did not accept that there was any breach
of the Code. The publication said that the photograph was taken in the middle
of the day in a public place where the complainant had a very limited
expectation of privacy. In addition, it argued that as the man’s face was
largely obscured, he was not easily identifiable. It said that a reporter had
spotted the complainant in an unresponsive state, tried to rouse him, and
having failed to do so, called an ambulance. Suspecting that the complainant
was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he then took a photograph of the
complainant. After the man had been taken to hospital, the reporter checked his
condition with the police the next day, who had confirmed that the man had been
released without requiring any hospital treatment and was “fine”. In these
circumstances, the publication did not accept that the complainant was
experiencing a medical emergency or was in a vulnerable state, and so nothing
private about him was revealed by the photograph.
7. Notwithstanding the above, the publication said that it
discussed at a senior editorial level whether there was a public interest in
publishing the image, and decided that there was due to the issues it
highlighted in relation to protecting public health and safety. It argued that
the photograph in the article under complaint illustrated the extent of
significant ongoing antisocial behaviour in Dundee, which the publication had
run a series of articles highlighting. The publication said that only after it
had satisfied all of these steps did it take the decision to publish the
photograph.
8. The publication said that as soon as it was contacted
directly by the complainant’s mother, it removed the photograph from the online
article immediately as a goodwill gesture. It also noted that the photograph
only featured in the first edition of the newspaper, which had a much smaller
circulation than the later edition. The publication also offered the
complainant’s mother the opportunity to speak about her experience, as part of
its work to highlight social problems in Dundee.
Relevant Code Provisions
9. Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and
family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
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, but is not confined to:
2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression
itself.
3. The regulator will consider the extent to which material
is already in the public domain or will become so.
4. Editors invoking the public interest will need to
demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication - or journalistic
activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve, and be
proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that
decision at the time.
5. An exceptional public interest would need to be
demonstrated to over-ride the normally paramount interests of children under
16.
Findings of the Committee
10. The photograph was taken in the middle of the day in a
city centre; these are not generally circumstances in which a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the Committee had regard for the
fact that being in a public place does not automatically negate all
expectations of privacy in every circumstance; for example, a person in a
public place may have a reasonable expectation of privacy where they are
receiving medical treatment, or experiencing an emergency. In this case, it was
accepted that at the time the photograph was taken, the complainant was not
receiving any medical treatment or experiencing a medical emergency. The police
confirmed prior to publication that no medical treatment had been administered.
11. The Committee also considered whether the photograph
itself revealed any private information about the complainant. While the
Committee acknowledged that the complainant’s family and friends had been upset
by the photograph, it simply showed him sitting on a bench, in a public place,
with his head on his knees. The Committee considered that the photograph had
not revealed any private information about the complainant. Nor did it show him
engaged in any private activity.
12. Finally, the Committee also had regard for the wider
circumstances in which the photograph and the article had been published.
Anti-social activity was a topic of ongoing concern in the local community and
public services, and the article and photograph had been published as part of a
campaign by the publication to highlight these issues. The Committee considered
publication to be in the public interest.
13. The Committee found no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusions
14. The complaint was not upheld
Remedial action required
15. N/A
Date complaint received: 21/05/2019
Date decision issued: 09/08/2019
The Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
