Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 11061-22 Maclennan v dailyrecord.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Stuart
Maclennan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime)
and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Scotland's highest-paid public transport boss
pictured driving illegal cloned car”, published on 15 August 2021.
2. The
article reported on the conduct of a senior public official (the complainant’s
father) who had been accused of driving an illegally cloned car. The article
gave details of the alleged crime. It stated that the publication had
photographed the official “driving a cloned silver Passat” on the Isle of Lewis
while “at the same time an almost identical blue Passat car with the same
reg[istration number] was pictured at his office” in Glasgow. It included
photographs of the two vehicles, with the captions detailing the time that the
photographs were captured, the vehicle type and registration number.
3. The
article also reported that the publication had photographed the official and
the complainant, described as the official’s “police officer son”, leaving a
property and “driving three miles” to a separate location. It said that the
complainant – a serving police officer – had been observed by the publication
“sitting in the passenger seat” of the silver vehicle. It also contained a
photograph of the complainant entering this vehicle, captioned “Maclennan with
son Stuart in car park near church on Lewis”, and another whilst he was sat in
the passenger seat.
4. The
complainant said that the article identified him as a relative of someone
accused of a crime in breach of Clause 9. He said that he had not consented to
being named and photographed in the article. He also denied that he was
genuinely relevant to the story: he did not own, drive, insure or maintain any
of the vehicles in question. He confirmed that his father had subsequently been
charged with, and pleaded guilty to, the offence.
5. The
complainant also said that the article intruded into his private life, in
breach of Clause 2. He said that the photographs were published without his
consent or permission, and showed him outside his family home and completing
daily activities. He said that the publication of these photographs, which
showed him leaving the family property and which clearly showed the vehicle
make and model, were intrusive particularly in circumstances where he was not
the subject of the article.
6. Further,
the complainant said that despite the photographer clearly having been present
at his family’s home address taking photos of the vehicle type, he had not seen
the photographer. He therefore believed that the pictures had been taken from a
vehicle at the end of his driveway that had disguised the photographer’s
presence. He was concerned that this was a breach of Clause 10.
7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. While it accepted that the complainant had been identified in the article, it stated that he was genuinely relevant to the story and had not been referenced unnecessarily: the photographs, including those of the complainant, illustrated the circumstances of the crime; the complainant – who was a serving police officer – had been present whilst his father was seen driving the cloned vehicle; and had been photographed both entering and sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle.
8. The
publication also denied a breach of Clause 2. It said that the complainant had
been photographed in a public place, where there was no reasonable expectation
of privacy. It also said that the existence of a familial relationship was not
private information.
9. In
addition, the publication denied a breach of Clause 10. It said that the
complainant’s concerns did not suggest any subterfuge had taken place or
clandestine devices used. It said that the fact that the complainant did not
observe the photographer did not in itself engage the terms of this Clause.
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.
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 under the age of 18 who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should
not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
iii)
Editors should generally avoid naming children under the age of 18 after arrest
for a criminal offence but before they appear in a youth court unless they can
show that the individual’s name is already in the public domain, or that the
individual (or, if they are under 16, a custodial parent or similarly
responsible adult) has given their consent. This does not restrict the right to
name juveniles who appear in a crown court, or whose anonymity is lifted.
Clause
10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*
i) The
press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden
cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile
telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of
documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without
consent.
ii)
Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or
intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then
only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
Findings
of the Committee
10. The
article reported on an investigation by the publication into the conduct of a
senior public official. It included the details of the crime to which they had
subsequently pleaded guilty to: cloning a vehicle. The complainant had been
photographed travelling in the cloned vehicle, with the article naming him and
explaining his familial connection to the official. The fact that the
complainant had been pictured in public riding as a passenger in the vehicle
made him genuinely relevant to the story. As such, identifying him as a
relative of the official was not a breach of Clause 9; the complainant was
relevant to the story.
11. The
Committee next turned to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2. The
published photographs did not show him engaged in a private activity and had
been taken in locations where the complainant did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy: entering a vehicle in a public car park; sitting in the
passenger seat of a vehicle travelling on a public road; and leaving his family
property in view of a public road. The Committee noted that the photograph, in
conjunction with the text of the article, had identified the complainant as a
relative of the official. However, a familial connection is not generally
information in respect of which an individual has a reasonable expectation of
privacy. Further, the photographs did not show the complainant engaged in any
intrinsically private activity. It also noted that the vehicle’s registration
number or type was not information relating to the complainant and which he had
an expectation of privacy over; the vehicle belonged to his father. As such,
the publication of this information did not therefore represent an intrusion
into the complainant’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.
12.
While the photograph had been taken from a location not obviously visible to
the complainant, the photographer had not engaged in misrepresentation or
subterfuge, and the camera was not “hidden” within the meaning of Clause 10.
There was no breach of the Clause 10.
Conclusion(s)
13. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
14. N/A
Date
complaint received: 08/08/22
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/12/22
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.
Back to ruling listing