PCC Case Studies

• Which clauses of the Code are relevant to these cases?
• Do you think that the Code of Practice was broken in any of these cases?
• Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

Case Study 1: A man vs. The Northwich Guardian

• Clause 6 Children, Clause 3 Privacy and Clause 9 Reporting of Crime are all relevant to the case.
• In my opinion, the Code of Practice was not broken in any of these cases: a * next to each of these clauses clearly states that the public interest is strong enough to overrule in cases involving the detection or exposion crime, and the protection of public health and safety.
• It also states that "The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain" (which the YouTube video undisputably already was, and was uploaded by the boys themselves).
• For this reason I think that the comlaint was upheld.

Case Study 2: A man vs. Zoo magazine

• Clauses 3 and 6 are the most relevant to this case.
• I do not think that Code of Practice was broken - their loud behaviour and obscene gestures meant that they were already drawing attention to themselves, and that the father was not at that point concerned about other members of the public or who else could see them. Furthermore, her welfare is not in concern, and they were in a public place.
• For this reason I think that the complaint was upheld.

Case Study 3: A man vs. The Times

• The relevant clauses are Clause 4, Harrasment, and Clause 6. Clause 4 states that "journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent persuit", and Clause 6 goes on to state that "A child 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".
• This therefore means that the journalist was clearly in breach of the code, as he persisted in following the boy to an internet cafe and allegedly texted and called him, and I do not think public interest would overrule in this case. None of his comments or photographs were published, however.
• Upheld

Case Study 4: A woman vs. The Independent

• Clauses 1 Accuracy and 3 are the most relevant, stating that "everyone is entitled to his or her private and family lives, home, health and correspondence. Editors will be expected to justify intrustions into any individual's private life without consent", and that "the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information".
• She had not told her family so the report was in breach of both of the above clauses.
• Upheld - they offered to print an apology, and apologized privately.

Case Study 5: A woman vs. The Sun

• The relevant clause is Clause 5, Intrustion into Grief or Shock.
• The coverage was brief and factual, treating the matter sensitively, and the event occured in a public place.
• For this reason I believe that the complaint was not upheld.

Case Study 6: A woman vs. The Eastbourne Gazette

• Harrassment, Hospitals, and Intrustion into Grief or Shock are the relevant three clauses.
• The journalist was very firmly in breach of all three of these clauses - he was asked several times to desist, and persisted in telephoning and visitng, and enters the hospital without indentifying himself.
• For this reason I believe that the complaint was upheld.

Case Study 7: A Police officer vs. The Sunday Telegraph

• Clandestine devices and subterfuge is the Clause in question, however public interest could be perceived to be a mitigating factor.
• I think that although, yes, the police offer is in the public eye and it is in public interest to obtain details about anything that may "sit uneasily" with members of the public, this is no excuse for the way in which the journalists acted, which I think was shameless, and asking to use the toilet in no way makes the information publicly available.
• I think personally that the complaint should have been upheld - although I'm not sure if it would have been.

Case Study 8: Paul McCartney vs. Hello! magazine

• Privacy and Intrustion into Grief or Shock is the Clause in question, although the fact that he was in a public place could be mitigating.
• I think that at such a difficult and sensitive time of their life however should have been respected and the journalists behaved shockingly.
• For this reason I believe that the complaint was upheld - an apology was sent directly to McCartney.