Decision of the Complaints Committee 19498-17 Perrin v The News (Portsmouth)
Summary of Complaint
1.
Gillian Perrin complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
News (Portsmouth) breached Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “NAME THEM”, published on 27 October 2017.
2.
The article reported that the police were appealing for the public’s help to
identify thirty individuals who they wished to contact as part of its investigation
into public disorder at a football match; spectators had reportedly “ran across
the pitch aggressively” and further disorder and bad behaviour was reported to
have occurred outside of the stadium, following the match. On the front page of
the newspaper, images of the thirty individuals had been published. This
included an unpixelated image of the complainant’s son, who had attended the
football match.
3.
The article was published online in substantively the same format, headlined “PICTURES:
Police release 30 photos after Pompey disorder”. This article originally
included an unpixelated image of the complainant’s son.
4.
The complainant said that the newspaper had published the image of her son, who
was thirteen years old at the time, without her consent. She said that this had
caused great distress to them both. The complainant provided a copy of a letter
received from the police which stated that her son had “been identified from
CCTV footage as being part of…these incidents”. It also outlined that the
police would not prosecute the complainant’s son for his involvement in the
incident, but that it would take steps proportionate to his age and lack of
previous convictions.
5.
The newspaper did not accept that there had been a breach of the Code. It said
that the images were published in good faith, as part of an ongoing police inquiry
into a serious crime. The newspaper explained that it had initially been
contacted by the police press office, who asked if it wanted to publish the
story. Having agreed, the newspaper said that the police then supplied it with
a press release and the images of the individuals, for the purpose of
publication.
6.
The newspaper said that the aim of publishing the images was to identify those
pictured. Given the nature of the police appeal, it was not made aware of the
names or ages of the individuals and so was not able to carry out the usual
checks prior to publication. The newspaper said that as such, it did not
consider the publication of the images against the terms of the Code.
7.
The newspaper said that following publication, the police informed it once any
pictured individual had been successfully identified and requested that their images
were pixelated in the online article. The newspaper said that the complainant’s
son’s face had been obscured following the police’s request, and before the
complainant had made her complaint. His image was not re-published in print.
8.
The newspaper said that although it could not have considered the complainant’s
son’s age prior to the publication of his image, its publication was justified
in the public interest, in line with detecting or exposing crime or serious
impropriety. Nevertheless, the newspaper offered to publish a follow-up article
which would outline that the complainant’s son had cooperated with the police
investigation.
Relevant Code
Provisions
9. Clause 6 (Children)
i) All pupils should be free to
complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) They must not be approached
or photographed at school without permission of the school authorities.
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.
The Public Interest
1. The public interest includes,
but is not confined to:
§ Detecting or exposing crime, or
the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.
§ Protecting public health or
safety.
§ Protecting the public from being
misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
§ Disclosing a person or
organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which
they are subject.
§ Disclosing a miscarriage of
justice.
§ Raising or contributing to a
matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical
conduct or incompetence concerning the public.
§ Disclosing concealment, or likely
concealment, of any of the above.
2. There is a public interest in
freedom of expression itself.
3. The regulator will consider
the extent to which material is already in the public domain or will or will
become so.
4. Editors invoking the public
interest will need to demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication -
or journalistic activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve,
and be proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that
decision at the time.
5. An exceptional public interest
would need to be demonstrated to over-ride the normally paramount interests of
children under 16.
Findings of the Committee
10.
The Code provides specific and important protection to children. The fact that
the complainant’s son was suspected of being involved in criminal activity was
a matter which clearly related to his welfare.
Clause 6 was engaged by the publication of a photograph of him, without
parental consent. An exceptional public interest was required, to override the
child’s right to protection from intrusion.
11.
The photograph had been provided to the newspaper by the police, and it had
been published to assist the police in the identification of individuals
suspected of engaging in criminal activity. The public interest in exposing or
detecting crime is specifically recognised in the Code. The newspaper had considered
the public interest prior to publication, albeit not in relation to Clause 6,
as it had not been aware of the complainant’s son’s age. The Committee noted
that editors should be vigilant regarding the ages of photograph subjects to
prevent an inadvertent breach of Clause 6. In this case, there was an
exceptional public interest in publishing the boy’s photograph, and there was
no breach of Clause 6. Nonetheless, the Committee welcomed the publication’s
decision to swiftly remove the complainant’s son’s photograph, when the police
confirmed that he had been identified.
Conclusions
12. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial action required
13. N/A.
Date complaint received: 30/10/2017
Date decision issued: 10/01/2018