· Decision of the Complaints Committee 04850-15 Howell v Daily Express
Summary of
complaint
1. Philip Howell complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Express had breached Clause 3 (Privacy)
and Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Police haul ‘abusive Brits off Ibiza flight for drunkenly
abusing cabin crew’”, published online on 18 July 2015.
2. The article reported that a group of holidaymakers had
been escorted from a flight for allegedly abusing cabin crew who had told them
that they would be limited to one alcoholic drink each during the flight. The
article included a photograph, which showed the complainant, the captain of the
aircraft, watching police as they dealt with the incident on board.
3. The complainant said the publication of his image
could result in him being targeted by the accused men. Furthermore, he did not
want to be associated with any potential prosecution that might be brought by
the airline or the Civil Aviation Authority. He said his image had nothing to
do with the story and had added nothing to it. He had been acting solely in his
professional role and had been legally required to maintain order on the
aircraft. He asked for his image to be pixelated.
4. The newspaper considered that a passenger on the
flight may have had a reasonable expectation of privacy; however, it did not
consider that the aircraft’s captain could claim such a right. It said the
complainant was shown acting as the captain, exercising his decision to have a
group of passengers removed. It further considered that the complainant could
not have had any expectation of privacy once the police had entered the
aircraft.
5. The newspaper said the complainant was not named in
the article, and the image was not captioned as showing the captain of the
aircraft. It did not consider that the article had revealed any private
information about the complainant, and it declined his request to pixelate his
image.
6. The newspaper said the image showed the events
unfolding on the aeroplane. It did not consider that Clause 9 had been
breached.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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 their consent. Note - Private places are public or
private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clause 9 (Reporting of crime)
i.) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused
of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they
are genuinely relevant to the story.
ii.) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially
vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime. This
should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
Findings of the Committee
8. The image had not shown the complainant doing anything
private. It had shown him standing in the main cabin of the aircraft, in clear
view of passengers and crew, as he carried out his professional duties as
captain. He did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such
circumstances. As the image had not disclosed any private information about the
complainant, the complaint under Clause 3 was not upheld.
9. Clause 9 is intended to protect friends or relatives
of individuals accused or convicted of crime, or children who witness or are
victims of crime from identification in the press. The complaint did not engage
the terms of this Clause.
Conclusions
The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 03/08/2015