Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10674-21 McDaid v Greenock Telegraph
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Gordon McDaid complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
Greenock Telegraph breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Passenger cut free after serious crash”, published on
9th October 2021.
2. The
article reported on a “serious collision in Greenock’s west end” involving a
van and a car. The article stated that “Both of the drivers and one passenger
were taken to hospital for treatment, but the injuries sustained are not
believed to be life-threatening”. It also explained that the collision had
caused the road to be closed “for over an hour”. The article was accompanied by
an image that showed the car and the van after they had collided. The van was a
company van that bore an individual’s name and phone number. The license plate
of the van was also visible.
3. The
article also appeared online under the same headline. A different image was
included that showed the side of the car post-collision, and the front of the
van, but the name and number on the side of the van were not visible.
4. The
complainant was the driver of the van. He said that the article was a breach of
Clause 2 because it identified him as being involved in the collision, due to
the publication of the image of his van, which showed his phone number, name,
and number plate. He explained that he was the only person with access to the
van and that his business had just one van – the one shown in the article.
Whilst he accepted that the van had been driven around the area and that some
passers-by would have seen the collision site, he considered that the article
identified him as the victim of a collision to a much wider audience.
5. The
publication said it did not accept a breach of the Code. It stated that the
collision had taken place on a public road and, because the complainant had
chosen to write his name and phone number on the side of his van, these details
would have been seen by anyone who passed the collision, or who had seen the
van driving around the area. The publication asserted that hundreds of people
would have passed the collision site due to its location on a busy road. The
publication further explained that the details included in the report had been
provided by the police and that the article was of clear public interest as the
accident had caused severe disruption to traffic on one of the busiest roads in
the area. In addition, the publication said it handled the publication of this
image in line with its usual practice on these matters. It stated that the
licence plate will usually be blurred out to protect the identity of the owner
of the vehicle, unless it was a business or work vehicle that had the owner’s
details included on the side. Notwithstanding this, the publication removed the
online article as a gesture of goodwill.
6. The
complainant did not accept this as a resolution to her complaint.
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 2
(Privacy)*
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home,
physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii)
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private
life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of
privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of
information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in
the public domain or will become so.
iii) It
is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or
private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Findings
of the Committee
7. The
article under complaint reported on a road traffic collision, an incident that
had taken place on a public street, visible to passers-by, and was of
legitimate interest to the newspaper’s readers as the cause of significant
disruption and a potential safety risk.
8. The
article had informed readers that the driver of the van involved in the
collision had sustained injuries – not believed to be life threatening – and
had been taken to hospital. The article did not identify any of the individuals
involved in the incident; however, the photograph which accompanied the article
clearly showed the full name and telephone number – those of the complainant –
which were displayed on the van. The vehicle involved was the complainant’s
professional vehicle, and the details included on the side of the van were
intended as a public advertisement of his professional role. The questions for
the Committee were whether the publication of the image served to identify the
complainant as one of the crash victims, and, if so, whether this intruded into
his private life.
9. In
considering this issue, the Committee noted first that the article did not
identify the complainant as the person involved in the collision, although it
would have identified him as the most likely individual to the circle of those
familiar with the business, who would be aware that there was only one van and
only one person with access to that van.
10. The
Committee then considered whether the potential identification represented an
intrusion into the complainant’s private life. The collision had occurred on a
busy road in the area and so the scene depicted in the photograph – including
the name on the side of the van – would have been seen by a number of people
who passed the site of the crash. In addition, the article had not included
detailed information about the complainant’s health, other than a broad comment
as to the seriousness of his injuries. In these circumstances, the Committee
concluded that the publication of the photograph and this minimal detail as to
the nature of the complainant’s injuries, which had been provided by police,
did not represent an intrusion into his private life and did not represent a
breach of Clause 2.
Conclusion(s)
11. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
Date
complaint received: 10/10/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/01/2022
Back to ruling listing