Press Complaints Commission >> About the PCC >> Annual Reports >> Statistics and review of the year

Statistics and Review of the year

Our complainants

The Commission received 2,630 complaints in 2002 – slightly down on the record number of 2001, but significantly higher than the average of the previous three years (as Table 1 demonstrates). This substantial level of complaints, in the Commission’s view, underlines its success in making its service known – particularly to ordinary people.

Indeed , as Table 2 demonstrates, ordinary people continue to make up the vast majority of our complainants. Contrary to belief in some quarters, some 2,390 of the complaints we received in 2002 – or 91% – were from ordinary men, women and children temporarily caught up in national or local newspaper attention. The remainder of the complaints were from those in the national public eye, or from organisations. The PCC, of course, deals with all complaints in an entirely consistent and transparent manner – no matter who makes them.

The newspapers and magazines complained about

The number of complaints about national daily and Sunday newspapers in 2002 dropped to 51% from 56% the previous year, as is set out in Table 3. One in three complaints were about regional and local newspapers in England and Wales (28%), and publications special to Scotland (7%). As last year, 5% of complaints were about magazines, with the remainder about publications special to Northern Ireland and to news agencies throughout the United Kingdom.

Complaints and the Code of Practice

Table 4 sets out the Clauses of the Code under which individuals complained. The majority of the Clauses of the Code under which individuals complained – 56% – is still about accuracy in reporting. However, it is interesting to note that the number of such complaints has continued to fall historically – down from levels of over 70% as recently as 1997. The Commission regards this as a welcome sign that – thanks to the success of the Code – editors now both take greater care about accuracy and resolve far more disputes directly before individuals have to resort to complaining to the PCC about breaches of the Code.

Almost a quarter of complaints continue to be about some aspect of personal privacy – with a growing number, reflecting the substantial toughening of the Code in recent years, about intrusion into grief and shock.

Because of the global political situation, as well as continuing reporting of debate about issues relating to asylum seekers and refugees, the Commission again received a significant number of complaints about discrimination.

The outcome of the complaints

As is set out elsewhere, the PCC’s main role with every complaint it receives – no matter who it is from – is to seek amicably to resolve it. That way we can deliver a result which is fast and fair. In 2002 we resolved a record number of complaints, and (like last year) in record time.

Of the complaints received in 2002, one third – a very similar proportion to last year – turned out to be matters which were outside the remit of the Commission. Some were legal issues, others were matters of taste and decency, some were third party complaints and a handful were made too late to be investigated. Even in these cases, where the PCC could take no formal action, the Commission drew the newspaper’s attention to the concerns of the complainant.

Following investigation, in 26% of cases no breach of the Code was established, or no further action was required by the PCC after the editor of the publication concerned made an appropriate offer to remedy any possible breach.

The Commission issued a full and formal adjudication in 36 cases – upholding 17 and rejecting 19. The remainder were either resolved directly, or not pursued following an explanation from the publication concerned or a clarification about the Code and the PCC’s procedures by the Commission.

The result of the complaints

As is set out elsewhere, the PCC’s main role with every complaint it receives – no matter who it is from – is to seek amicably to resolve it. That way we can deliver a result which is fast and fair. In 2002 we resolved a record number of complaints, and (like last year) in record time.

Of the complaints received in 2002, one third – a very similar proportion to last year – turned out to be matters which were outside the remit of the Commission. Some were legal issues, others were matters of taste and decency, some were third party complaints and a handful were made too late to be investigated. Even in these cases, where the PCC could take no formal action, the Commission drew the newspaper’s attention to the concerns of the complainant.

As Table 5 shows, following investigation, in 26% of cases no breach of the Code was established, or no further action was required by the PCC after the editor of the publication concerned made an appropriate offer to remedy any possible breach.

Measuring customer satisfaction

In 2002, the PCC established a system to measure customer satisfaction with the complaints process. Complainants whose complaints were investigated were sent a survey – which they could return anonymously – covering a range of key indicators. The results of this survey are set out on page 11.

Privacy – not just the preserve of the rich and famous

There is a widespread, but mistaken, belief that the issue of intrusion into privacy affects just the rich and famous. As the statistics on page 7 show, concerns about intrusion into an individual’s privacy are just as likely to affect ordinary people as they are those in the public eye – and just as likely to relate to local newspapers as to national ones. Indeed, the PCC last year received more complaints concerning privacy about local newspapers than national ones. Although regional and local newspapers in England and Wales, and publications special to Scotland, accounted for 36% of the total of all complaints, 50% of complaints raised under one of the privacy clauses of the Code related to them. The Commission underlined these points in a pair of adjudications in the spring of 2002. In the first it upheld a complaint from Mr Hugh Tunbridge against a local newspaper in Surrey about pictures taken of him in a private place. A key adjudication – which adds to the PCC’s case law about the use of photos – made clear that: “there may be places such as hotels which are accessible to the public where an individual will still have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In this case the Commission considered that customers of a quiet café could expect to sit inside such an establishment without having to worry that surreptitious photographs would be taken of them and published in newspapers” (Report 58).

At the same time, the Commission rejected a complaint from the well known celebrity Steve Bing, who had complained about intrusion into his privacy by a national newspaper. In ruling against him the Commission noted that: “he had been involved in a high-profile relationship with a famous actress and had subsequently publicly argued with her about the paternity of her child. In the Commission’s view, scrutiny by the press in these circumstances was inevitable” (ibid).

Protecting all children – in the public eye and out of it

Similarly, the Commission has long made clear that all children – regardless of who their parents are – deserve the full and stringent protection of the Code. A number of important adjudications in 2002 gave further teeth to this vital principle. In one instance, the Commission upheld a complaint from the Prime Minister and Mrs Blair about coverage of their son Euan’s university application in two national newspapers. In reaching its conclusion, the Commission underlined that the children of famous people are not themselves disentitled to privacy: “The children of public figures like the Prime Minister are clearly not public figures in their own right – but of interest to the public only because of the position of their parents. The Commission considers that they should continue to benefit – like the families of all public figures – from the full and strong protection contained in the letter and spirit of Clause 6 of the Code” (Report 57). That applies to all those under 16. Rulings against two newspapers in Scotland for a story about a young boy suffering from suspected tuberculosis, against a local paper in South Wales for photographing a boy at school without the headteacher’s permission, and against a local paper in Merseyside for publication of an interview with a 15 year old girl without consent, all underlined this point.

Payment to witnesses

As a result of offers of payments to witnesses in the trial for indecency of school teacher Amy Gehring in January 2002, the PCC raised a complaint of its own volition against a number of national newspapers who had been involved. Following an investigation, the Commission ruled that the payments were in line with the Code: “The public was entitled to know the full story of what had happened, bearing in mind that every allegation of
unsuitable behaviour would not sustain criminal charges and would not therefore have been heard in court. The events happened in the wider context of a serious shortage of teachers which had forced the government to look abroad for supply teachers to fill posts” (Report 57).

However, following on from controversy about that case – and the payments made in the trial of Gary Glitter (see Annual Review 1999, p.7) – the Lord Chancellor announced in March that he intended to introduce legislation to ban witness payments by law. In its submission to his review of the law (a full copy of which is on the PCC website), the Commission pointed out that:

there is no pressing need for legislation: only six cases have arisen in the last fifty years – hardly overwhelming evidence of a problem that requires the force of legislation or of the failure of self regulation; and
legislation would not be a practical or effective way of policing this area: it could only cover the period surrounding the trial itself, although payment may occur a long time before or after; it would not cover the offer of payment, which might prove equally mischievous to payment itself; it does not encourage transparency; and, importantly, it would not have proved beneficial in any of the six cases on which the need for statutory control has been predicated. Self regulation remains by far the most efficacious way to deal with this issue.

Following consultation on his proposals, the Lord Chancellor agreed that the best way to tackle the concerns that had risen out of the Glitter and Gehring trials was through strengthened self regulation. This move was welcomed by Professor Pinker and Les Hinton, Chairman of the Code Committee. The Committee is currently considering, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor’s Department, ways to amend the Code to meet these concerns (see page 16).

Reporting of crime

The Commission’s Annual Review 1999 (Section 5) set out the changes that took place to the Code to safeguard the potentially vulnerable position of children who are victims of, or witnesses to, crime. This Code change took place as a result of concerns about newspaper reporting expressed during the passage of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

At the time of those debates, the PCC made clear that it believed standards of reporting in this area were already high. This point has been underlined by the fact that the Commission did not receive a complaint about a potential breach of the Code in this area until 2002 – some three years after the Code change. After the Commission upheld that complaint about a local newspaper, Professor Pinker commented that: “This adjudication underlines the care that needs to be taken in all issues relating to children and crime. However, as the first ruling in four years since the Code was substantially toughened, it also underlines to what lengths editors already go to ensure the protection of these vulnerable individuals”.

Protecting the public – 24 hours a day

As detailed elsewhere, the PCC gives free and practical advice to thousands of callers who phone one of our dedicated Helplines each year for help in dealing with newspapers and magazines. But we are also aware that some people need urgent advice – perhaps because reporters are repeatedly approaching them – when our offices are not open. That is why we have launched a new 24 hour service to deal with such problems. Any member of the public can page us on 07659 152656 at any time of the day and an experienced member of staff will telephone them back with information about how to deal with the situation. The number is available on the PCC’s out of hours answerphone message and on the website.

Financial journalism

During the year, there were serious concerns about the implementation of the EU Market Abuse Directive – which, it was feared, could undermine the tough standards set out in the Code of Practice by imposing unworkable legal controls in this area. Following consultation across the newspaper industry, in which the PCC took part, the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) – the body responsible for drawing up guidance under the Directive – adopted measures to safeguard the position of self regulation in all EU Member States in which it exists.

The Human Rights Act 1998

There have been a number of decisions in the Courts which have developed the important issue of privacy and the media under the Human Rights Act. A crucial judgement in the case of Naomi Campbell – in an appeal brought by Mirror Group Newspapers against the earlier decision of the High Court awarding £3,500 of damages to Ms Campbell for a story relating to her drug addiction and treatment (see Annual Review 2001, p.14) – underlined this development. In finding in favour of the newspaper, the Court of Appeal ruled that:

“…the Courts must have regard to the importance of freedom of expression, particularly where it is the media that seeks to exercise that freedom. The Strasbourg Court has repeatedly recognised that freedom of the media is a bastion of any democratic society and Section 12 (4) of the Human Rights Act reflects the same appreciation …. One principle, which has been recognised by the parties in this case, is that where a public figure chooses to make untrue pronouncements about his or her private life, the press will normally be entitled to put the record straight” (Naomi Campbell vs MGN Limited, paras 42-43, Court of Appeal, 14th October 2002).

This ruling, strongly welcomed by Professor Pinker, chimes clearly with earlier related judgements – in the cases of Anna Ford, Gary Flitcroft and Jamie Theakston – in buttressing the position of the PCC and of self regulation. Since those judgements in Court, no further cases regarding privacy and the media have been brought under the Human Rights Act. At the same time, the PCC continues to receive a significant number of complaints in this area – proving the strength of quick, effective and free action through the PCC over any form of privacy law.

Select Committee inquiry

On 19th December 2002, the all party Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons launched an inquiry into privacy and media intrusion. Professor Pinker welcomed this as an opportunity to set out the PCC’s service for ordinary people – much of which is set out in this Annual Review. Full copies of the PCC’s submission will be available in the spring of this year.

New PCC Chairman

On 14 July 2002, it was announced that Sir Christopher Meyer would become the next Chairman of the PCC – taking over from Professor Pinker, who has been Acting Chairman of the Commission since Lord Wakeham’s retirement. Professor Pinker warmly welcomed the appointment. Sir Christopher – a distinguished diplomat who was British Ambassador in Washington for over five years until the end of February 2003 – takes up his post in April.

Finance

As set out on page 10, the key to any effective system of regulation is that it should be free at the point of use. That complainants can make complaints about newspapers or magazines free of charge is thanks to the substantial commitment of the newspaper and magazine publishing industry to the work of the PCC (which is financed through the Press Standards Board of Finance). The PCC’s audited accounts for the year ending 31.12.2002 were not available at the time of printing but will be published in the next Annual Review.

For many years, Pressbof has been administered seemingly effortlessly by its Secretary and Treasurer, Grahame Thomson. Mr Thomson is retiring later this year – and the Commission would like to take this opportunity to thank him for all he has done to make the system as strong and effective as it is today.

[Prev] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]