Decision of the Complaints Committee 04839-15 HRH the Duke of York v Daily Mail
Summary of
complaint
1. HRH the Duke of York complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail had breached Clause 3
(Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in relation to the commission of a
helicopter flight over his home and four articles published between 20 and 26
June 2015.
2. The articles reported that the complainant’s daughter
had held a party to celebrate her 25th birthday at the Royal Lodge in Windsor
Park, the complainant’s home. They discussed details of the party, including
its Disney theme and the attendance of various celebrity guests.
3. On 19 June, before publication of the articles, the
newspaper chartered a helicopter to fly over the grounds of the Royal Lodge and
take aerial photographs of preparations for the party happening at the
complainant’s home and garden.
4. The complainant said that this represented an
intrusion into his privacy. He had not known of, or consented to, the flight
over the grounds, which were a private place. The complainant said that the
house was secluded and not visible to the naked eye from any part of the public
highway, and that access to the house and gardens was restricted, including
with fencing, and controlled by security. He said that the helicopter had flown
so low over the garden, passing over four times, that those working in the
garden feared it was in distress.
5. The complainant said that information included in the
coverage about the layout of the party, concerning the arrangement of tents and
a fairground in the garden, had come from the flight; he had a reasonable expectation
of privacy in relation to information concerning events and activities taking
place at his home. This was demonstrated by the extreme lengths to which the
newspaper was forced to go in order to obtain the information. Publication of
these details further breached Clause 3. The complainant said that there was no
possible public interest justification for these intrusions into his private
life.
6. The newspaper denied that either the use of the
helicopter or the information published in the article breached Clause 3. It
said the complainant’s daughter was eighth in line to the throne and a senior
member of the Royal Family. The public had an interest in being informed about
a lavish party for her birthday, which she had attended dressed as Snow White accompanied
by seven dwarves, and which was always likely to attract attention. It noted
that it had contacted the complainant’s former wife’s press contact before
publication, who had raised no objections on privacy grounds to the reporting
of the story.
7. The newspaper said that it had received the
information included in the article about the layout of the party from a
confidential source and provided a draft of the article, containing these
details and written prior to the flight, to substantiate its position. It said
the flight was chartered to obtain images to illustrate the article and to
ensure the information was accurate. The helicopter was chartered to fly the
day before the party, when it was understood that the family were attending
Royal Ascot.
8. It provided copies of the photographs taken by the
helicopter, which showed tents, buildings and fairground structures; in two
instances an individual apparently working on the party infrastructure was
visible. It said that the helicopter had flown at 600ft, although the company
had a Civil Aviation Authority exemption to fly as low as 262ft for
photographic work. Obtaining images in this manner was not intrusive; many news
stories – such as storms, road accidents, plane crashes, festivals, sporting
events and public gatherings – are routinely and un-controversially illustrated
by aerial photography. Aerial photographs of people's homes are a matter of
routine and are taken, for example, by Google Earth. In any event, none of the
images had been published after the newspaper had been contacted by the
complainant’s representatives to raise objections.
Relevant Code Provisions
9. Clause 3 (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 in
private places without consent.*
Note – private places are public or private property
where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Findings of the Committee
10. The Code requires editors to show appropriate respect
for an individual’s private and family life, and specifically cites respect for
the home as part of this obligation, reflecting the fact that an individual’s
home is a particularly private space. This extends to the garden or grounds of
a home, although the extent to which an individual will have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in relation to the grounds or garden of a home will
vary, generally according to their visibility, or potential visibility, to
members of the public.
11. The grounds of Royal Lodge, the complainant’s home,
were not publicly accessible, nor visible to the public. For that reason the
complainant had, on 19 June, a reasonable expectation that the grounds would be
respected as a private place, notwithstanding his absence at the time.
12. In light of this conclusion, the essential issues
arising under Clause 3(i) and (ii) were whether the use of aerial photography
in this case amounted to an intrusion into the complainant’s private life and
whether that intrusion was justified.
13. Aerial photography can be a legitimate tool, which
enables reporting on otherwise inaccessible events or places; however, it
carries a specific risk of intrusion because it allows a photographer to
disregard those physical barriers which would otherwise seem to offer
protection from intrusion and scrutiny and which, therefore, give rise to a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
14. Aerial photography of an individual’s home or garden
will not always amount to a breach of Clause 3, and the Committee emphasised
that its decision on any particular complaint will be based on the
circumstances. However, editors must consider the risk of intrusion and the
extent of any such intrusion, in order to judge whether this would, in the
circumstances, be justified. The nature and purpose of the aerial photography
will be an important factor.
15. In this instance, the helicopter’s flight over the
private space of the grounds of the complainant’s home, intended to capture
images of the preparations for the event he intended to hold there, was a clear
intrusion, regardless of whether the complainant was there. The effect of such
an intrusion was to deprive him of the security of his private space, in which
he could engage in activities, away from the public gaze.
16. It was irrelevant that the photographs were not in
the event published and that they were innocuous. In this case, the
flight itself was intrusive because it served to undermine the complainant’s
reasonable expectation of privacy. It, therefore, required justification.
17. The newspaper’s explanation that it sought to confirm
details of the party, and to illustrate the story, was not sufficient to
justify this intrusion. Any public interest served by the information published
in the articles was not proportionate to the intrusion caused by the flight. In
any event, those details could and were discovered by means which did not
involve the intrusion identified by the Committee.
18. The coverage of the party, which included the
arrangement of the tents and costumes, was trivial and had been sourced
separately; its publication did not constitute a further intrusion. The
Committee did not uphold the complaint about the published coverage.
19. But in the absence of justification for the aerial
photography, the newspaper had failed to respect the complainant's private and
family life and home.
Conclusions
20. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
21. Where the Committee had upheld the complaint as a
breach of Clause 3, the appropriate remedial action was publication of an
adjudication. While no material had been published in breach of the Code, given
the nature of the breach identified, the adjudication should be published as a
news item within the first 10 pages of the print newspaper, and for 12 hours on
the homepage of the newspaper’s website (it should be archived and searchable,
as normal, thereafter). The headline must make clear that IPSO has upheld the
complaint, and refer to its subject matter; it must be agreed with IPSO in
advance.
The terms of the adjudication to be published are as
follows:
The Duke of York complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail had intruded into his private life
in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, in relation
to the commission of a helicopter flight over his home.
IPSO’s Complaints Committee upheld the complaint as a
breach of the Code, and has required the Daily Mail to publish this
adjudication to remedy that breach.
On 19 June the newspaper chartered a helicopter to fly
over the grounds of the Royal Lodge and take aerial photographs of preparations
for a party happening at the complainant’s home and garden to celebrate his
daughter’s 25th birthday.
The complainant said that this represented an intrusion
into his privacy. The house was secluded and not visible to the naked eye;
access to the house and gardens was restricted and controlled by security. He
said that the helicopter had flown so low over the garden, passing over four
times, that those working in the garden feared it was in distress.
The newspaper denied that the use of the helicopter
breached Clause 3, and argued that the decision to commission the flight was
justified in the public interest.
It said the flight was chartered to obtain images to
illustrate an article and to ensure information it intended to publish about
the party was accurate. The helicopter was chartered to fly the day before the
party, when it was understood that the family were attending Royal Ascot.
Obtaining images in this manner was not intrusive; many news stories are
routinely and un-controversially illustrated by aerial photography. In any
event, none of the images had been published after the newspaper had been
contacted by the complainant’s representatives to raise objections.
IPSO’s Complaints Committee noted that the Code required
that the Daily Mail show appropriate respect for the complainant’s private and
family life. It specifically includes respect for the home; this reflects the
fact that the home is a particularly private space.
Given that the grounds of the complainant’s home were not
publicly accessible, or generally visible to the public, the complainant was
reasonably entitled to expect that they would be respected as a private place.
The Committee recognised that aerial photography can be a
legitimate tool; however, it carries a specific risk of intrusion because it
allows a photographer to disregard physical barriers which would seem to offer
protection from intrusion and scrutiny.
In this instance, the helicopter’s flight over the
private space of the grounds of the complainant’s home, designed to capture
images of the preparations for the party, was clearly intrusive, regardless of
the fact that the complainant was not at home at the time. The effect of such
an intrusion was to deprive him of the security of a private space, in which he
could engage in activities, away from the public gaze.
The newspaper had failed to properly justify this
intrusion, and the complaint was upheld.
Date complaint received: 03/08/2015
Date decision issued: 16/11/2015