![[Arrow]](/assets/1/arrow_right.gif){kind=icon}
![[Arrow]](/assets/1/arrow_down.gif){kind=icon}
 |
 |  |
|
||||||||
| Complainant Name: Clauses Noted: 3 Publication: Scottish Sun Complaint: Mrs Gail Sheridan complained to the Press Complaints Commission, through solicitors Bannatyne Kirkwood France & Co., that an article in The Scottish Sun of 11 October 2006 headlined “Gail’s pain” was illustrated by a photograph of her taken in a private place in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code. The complaint was not upheld. The complainant said the photograph showed her in her back garden, a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and was taken with a long lens. There was no public interest in its publication, particularly as she had appeared in public at a press conference the previous day. She provided a photograph of the garden where she had been pictured. The newspaper disagreed that the complainant had had a reasonable
expectation of privacy. The
photographer was on a public road – and did not leave his car – when he took
the picture of the complainant at the side of her house, which was on the
corner of two roads. The newspaper
provided a series of photographs, detailing the complainant’s exact location in
relation to the photographer and to the road.
It said that the complainant was visible to the public at the time when
she was photographed, both from the photographer’s vantage point and – more
clearly – from the street to the side of the property where a passer-by would
have only been metres away from her.
Although the image was taken using a long lens, she would have been
visible to someone on the street without such magnification. The newspaper argued that the complainant was
not involved in any private activity as she was merely standing on her driveway
with her keys in her hand. Had she been
doing anything private, the newspaper would not have published the
photograph. Finally, it argued that the
complainant was a public figure with a high media profile, and had previously
posed for photographs in her garden that were published in a magazine. However, it agreed to annotate its records to
reflect the complainant’s concerns and, as a gesture of goodwill, gave an
undertaking about future publication.
Decision: Adjudication: In considering whether individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in particular locations, the Commission applies a common sense test that is not confined simply to whether or not the land someone is on is privately owned. For instance, there are publicly accessible places such as cafes, churches or offices where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, while ground which is privately owned but completely visible to passers by may be considered less private.
In this case, it seemed from the evidence provided
that the complainant would have been visible and identifiable from the street
when the photograph was taken. She was standing to the side of her house
in relative proximity to an opening onto the road and was not hidden from
public view in an enclosed back garden. Had she been hidden from
view in an enclosed space, the Commission may well have come to a
different decision. It further noted that the photograph did not
appear to show the complainant engaging in any particularly private
activity. In circumstances where the complainant was outside and visible
to passers by – and where the photograph was innocuous – the Commission found
no grounds to uphold the complaint. This was the case even though the
photograph appeared to have been taken with a long lens. The Code does
not distinguish between long lens and other types of
photography. It is the location of the individual – in
this case, whether the complainant was visible and identifiable from the street
– that is important, not the means by which a photograph is taken.
Report: << Go Back |
 | ||||||||||
| Â | Â | |
 |
|
|
||
