Decision of the Complaints Committee – 12131-20 Emmett v
Daily Mirror
Summary of Complaint
1. Kelly Emmett complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Mirror breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and
Clause 6 (Children) in an article headlined “BECOME A PENPAL” published 27 June
2020.
2. The article reported on “a new letter-writing scheme to
show elderly care-home residents their community is thinking about them”. It
reported that, through the scheme, the complainant’s 10-year-old daughter and
an 82-year-old care home resident had “become penpals”. The article contained a
picture of the complainant’s daughter and care home resident, and also mentioned
the towns in which they live.
3. The complainant said the article breached Clause 2 and 6
because it had published her daughter’s first name, hometown and age, as well
as a photo of her, without parental consent. She confirmed that the article,
and photo published, did not affect or involve her daughter’s welfare, but said
that the publication’s failure to obtain her consent ran the risk of this
having happened. The complainant said that a different image of her daughter
and the details about her included in the article had previously been published
on a Facebook page about the scheme but noted that the organisation had not
sought her permission. She said the specific photo used in the article had not
appeared on the Facebook page and was not in the public domain. Instead, it had
been supplied by the person running the penpal scheme.
4. The publication did not accept it had breached the Code.
Whilst it accepted it had not obtained parental consent for the publication of
the photo supplied by the scheme, it pointed to the fact that the complainant
had accepted that the article’s publication had not impacted or involved her
daughter’s welfare. It also said that the daughter’s hometown, age, and
likeness was all information already in the public domain through the Facebook
post. It also confirmed that the specific photo used in the article had been
supplied by the person running the penpal scheme. Nonetheless, the newspaper
apologised for publishing the photograph without consent from an adult
responsible for the child.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. 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. 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.
6. Clause 6 (Children)
iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or
photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a
custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
Findings of the Committee
7. Clause 6 (Children) requires that publications must
obtain consent from a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult when
photographing a child “on issues involving their own or another child’s
welfare”. The requirement for consent also applies to the publication of
existing photographs.
8. The publication had used the photograph without obtaining
the consent of the complainant or another adult responsible for the child. The
Committee acknowledged the concern that in other circumstances the publication
of a photograph of a child, however innocuous, could have an impact on the
child’s welfare. It noted that the publication had apologised, and it welcomed
this positive response to the complaint. Nonetheless, the Code sets a test for
the circumstances in which consent is required under Clause 6(iii), and that
test relates to the context in which the photograph is published. In this
instance, the coverage related to the child’s involvement in a penpal scheme
organised by a charity rather than on any inherently personal or private issues
about her or any other child. Beyond the photograph, the personal details about
her were limited to her first name, hometown, age and participation in the
scheme, all of which was information previously in the public domain; no
information was given about her circumstances otherwise, or about any other
child. The complainant had confirmed that the article did not involve or relate
to her child’s welfare. While as noted above the Committee welcomed the
publication’s positive response to the complaint, it concluded that this was
not a case in which a child had been photographed on an issue relating to her
own or another child’s welfare. There was therefore no breach of Clause 6.
9. The Committee then considered whether the failure to
obtain the mother’s consent meant that the publication of the photograph, and
the child’s first name, hometown and age, gave rise to a breach of Clause 2. It
was accepted that the photo published was not on an issue involving the child’s
welfare. It was noted that the child’s likeness, as well as first name,
hometown and age, was already in the public domain. The Committee did not
consider that its publication intruded into her privacy. There was no breach of
Clause 2.
Conclusions
10. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
11. N/A
Date complaint received: 28/07/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/12/2020
Back to ruling listing