03814-24 Two complainants v bucksfreepress.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Two complainants complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that bucksfreepress.co.uk breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article published in November 2023.

2. The article contained an image of the complainants’ son wearing a white shirt, black trousers, a backpack and carrying a duffel bag. He was the only person in the picture and appeared to be walking. The image was a grainy still from CCTV footage, captioned, “Police CCTV appeal after voyeur films a teenage girl in changing room”.

3. The article reported “police have launched an appeal after a voyeur filmed a teenage girl in leisure centre changing rooms” and that police had “released CCTV of an individual who may have vital information relating to a voyeurism incident”. It said, “the victim, a girl in her teens, was in a changing cubicle when she suddenly saw a hand holding a mobile phone underneath the cubicle wall with the camera pointing towards her.” The article included a quote from an investigating officer who had said, “I would like to speak to the individual in this image as I believe they could have vital information about this incident. If you recognise them or have any other details which you think could help our investigation, please report online or call us”.

4. The complainants first contacted the newspaper directly to raise concerns about the article’s publication on 21 March 2024. After this contact, the newspaper contacted the relevant police force. The force confirmed that an individual was arrested and released without charge in connection to the incident. On 19 April, the newspaper removed the CCTV image of the complainants’ son and added the following to the article: “Update: Police said an individual was questioned but released without further charge.”

5. The complainants said the article breached Clause 6. They said publishing the image of their son, who was under 16, led to his identification at school. They said this had led to him being bullied, which had clearly impacted his time at school in breach of the Clause. They noted their son had not been charged with an offence. The complainants also said the article was in breach of Clause 6 because the newspaper had published a photo of their son in the context of a police investigation, which they said was a matter which related to his welfare. They said this photograph had been published without their consent, and could lead to unnecessary public attention and hinder their son’s educational experience and personal development.

6. They also said the article was in breach of Clause 2 because it said their son’s connection to the incident was private, and the article had identified him as having been involved in some capacity.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning first to Clause 6, it said that – following the update to the article – it contained no information which could identify the complainants’ son, such as his name, address or photograph. It said this meant it would be highly difficult and unlikely that a member of the public would be able to link the complainants’ child to the story. The publication said the image was supplied as part of a police appeal for information regarding a serious offence, and that images shared by the police can be reported by the press as a matter of public interest and are covered by qualified privilege. It further noted the incident remained an unsolved police case.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It said the article was based on a police press release circulated with the intention to find a party who might be able to assist the investigation into an alleged voyeurism incident, and its reporting was therefore in the public interest.

9. While the publication did not accept a breach of the Code, it said that any alleged breaches of the Code could be justified under the public interest exemption as set out in the Editors’ Code. It said the article was based on a public police appeal for information regarding an alleged voyeurism incident, with the view to alerting the public of a serious incident and finding out further information relating to it. It said it is imperative the press remain free to publish such appeals from the police without fear of being punished. It said it was its duty as a responsible publisher to inform the public of investigations and incidents. It emphasised the leisure centre was used by thousands of people a year, including children, young people and families. It said the swimming pool had already been targeted by voyeurs in the past and reporting on another incident of this nature was very much in the public interest. It said voyeurism is a serious crime and there had been an increase of voyeurism cases in the local area.

10. In defending the public interest of the article, the newspaper set out the circumstances which led to its publication. It said it did not have a record of the discussion of the public interest prior to the publication of this specific article, though it deemed anything which came from an official channel such as from police to be in the public interest. This was due to the nature of their appeals, which it said “by their very virtue” cover things that are in the wider public interest such as crimes and investigations. It said publishing the image was proportionate to the public interest because the appeal was seeking to track down the person photographed to assist with the police’s inquiries, and it is routine for the police to distribute images in this way. It said the allegedly identifying information which breached the Code – including the photograph – specifically had to be published as part of their appeal because the force wanted to identify the person pictured, and that this material provided by the police was protected in law by qualified privilege. It said the Attorney General had previously said the press should not fear publishing material distributed by the police as part of their enquiries. The publication said that this meant publishing the image served the public interest in a proportionate way. 

11. The complainants said the police had confirmed no further action was to be taken in relation to the alleged incident. They also said that the police had since removed reports of the alleged incident, including the appeal which had led to the article’s publication, from their online platforms. They said that – given the publication accepted it would be difficult for any member of the public to definitively identify the person pictured – the article could not have served a significant public interest, as the article would not have led to the identification of the individual whom the police wished to question.

12. The complainants agreed that press freedom is a fundamental right. However, they said this freedom must be balanced against the potential harm which may be caused to vulnerable individuals. They said the article served as a tool for bullies and was exacerbating their child’s suffering. They said the fact that the police decided against taking any further action showed the matter had been resolved, and the removal of the photograph from the police website underscored that the information was not intended for prolonged public dissemination. They said while the image had since been removed, the fact it was publicly accessible for over six months meant that many people had the opportunity to connect the article- which continued to be published- directly to the complainants and their child, and that the photograph's extended presence prior to its removal had caused undue distress and invasion of privacy.

Relevant Clause 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 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.

iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.

v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life.

The Public Interest

There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in 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 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

13. The purpose of Clause 6 is not to prevent children from being referenced in news coverage, nor to stop the reporting of important issues which involve young people. However, it recognises the uniquely vulnerable position of children, which must be balanced against the rights of publications to report on matters which are in the public interest.

14. The publication had published the image in good faith to assist the police with their inquiries into a specific alleged incident at a leisure centre, where there had been a recurring issue of voyeurism which was clearly a matter of concern to the local community. The publication did not say they had been aware that the pictured individual was a child at the time the decision was reached to publish the report of the police appeal. The Committee noted that the image was grainy and there were no clear indicators in the picture itself as to the age or height of the individual. It was not, therefore, obvious from the picture that it featured a child.

15. The Committee noted that, had the image contained some indication that the pictured individual was a child, or if the police had made the publication aware of the fact, then the question of whether the public interest in publishing the appeal photograph was sufficient to override the normally paramount interests of the child would have arisen. However, in this case, there was nothing – in the Committee’s view - to indicate the photograph was of a child, nor did it appear that the publication had been made aware of this fact prior to being contacted by the complainants.

16. Taking the above into account, the Committee did not consider the obligations of Clause 6 applied at the time the decision was made to publish the article, given that it was not clear that a child was involved in the coverage. The Committee did not find that there was a breach of Clause 6.

17. The Committee noted the strong public interest which ordinarily exists in notifying the public about ongoing police inquiries. It further noted that the police clearly considered releasing the image to be an appropriate means of assisting its investigation. Nevertheless, decisions about the public interest are ultimately a matter for the publication to consider and they should not rely solely on the view of the police. Whilst the Committee’s starting point will be that there is a strong public interest in publishing such inquiries from the police, in cases where the Code is potentially breached a publication will, therefore, be expected to demonstrate that it believed that the publication of information would serve and be proportionate to the public interest at the time of publication.

18. The Committee next considered whether there was a breach of Clause 2. The information under complaint was released by the police prior to the publication of the article. Clause 2 stipulates that the Committee will consider the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain when considering whether there has been an intrusion into an individual’s private life. Where the information in the article – both the image and the information about the incident- had entered the public domain via a police appeal prior to publication, the Committee did not consider that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy over the information. There was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

19.  The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

20. N/A  

Date complaint received: 21/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/11/2024