The protection of individuals’ privacy is at the heart of the Commission’s work. Nine clauses of the Code relate to privacy, and in 2004 the Commission concluded 218 investigations into complaints that these clauses had been breached. Just over half of those cases – 127 – involved a possible breach of the Code of Practice. In all but two, the Commission’s staff negotiated proportionate and appropriate offers from the newspaper to resolve the matter. These complaints included objections to all manner of things: publication of addresses or photographs of houses; identification of innocent relatives of criminals; the use of information contained in private e-mails or confidential documents; the revelation of private health matters; the publication of photographs taken as a result of harassment, or taken at times of mourning; stories about anti-social children; the insensitive handling of stories at times of grief and so on.

Yet the broader public debate which surrounded privacy in 2004 tended to concern the far narrower topic of photographs. This was the result of two legal rulings, one concerning photographs of Caroline von Hannover – which appeared in the German press in the early 1990s – and one a picture of the model Naomi Campbell which was published three years previously. The complainant won in both cases. Of course, the Commission has regard to the view of the courts where the matter concerns issues of privacy. It is important to put the number of such rulings into context, however. Legal actions against newspapers regarding the publication of photographs – which tend to cite the law of confidence and Human Rights Act – are rare. They are a fraction of the number of similar cases with which the PCC deals.

There has been some speculation about whether these two cases would alter the manner in which the PCC handles complaints about photographs. Its general approach has been – and will continue to be – to apply a simple geographical test when considering complaints that the publication of photographs is intrusive. In the absence of any harassment, the chief issue for the Commission to consider is whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that they were photographed. The Commission has previously found that publicly accessible places such as restaurants, churches, offices – even the jungle – are places where someone would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, it has made clear that public highways, petrol station forecourts, public beaches, car parks and so on are not such places.

However, following the Naomi Campbell ruling, the Commission thought it right to outline that there might be a small category of photograph – taken in a public place and in the absence of any harassment – that nonetheless may breach the Code. While rejecting a complaint from the publisher Kimberley Fortier about the taking and publication of a photograph of her while walking along a street in Los Angeles, the Commission took the opportunity to make clear that it:

“does not generally consider that the publication of photographs of people in public places breach the Code. Exceptions might be made if there are particular security concerns, for instance, or in rare circumstances when a photograph reveals something about an individual’s health that is not in the public interest”

This approach was tested shortly afterwards in a complaint from Allegra Versace about photographs in a celebrity magazine which illustrated something about the state of her health. As a result of the clear indication in the Fortier ruling that such cases might breach the Code, the magazine resolved the complaint by publishing a prominent apology which accepted that it had erred, and gave undertakings not to repeat the material in the article and not to use the photographs again.

Such an outcome underlines the commonsensical manner in which the Commission can resolve complaints. The process is confidential, quick and free – all of which is in contrast with the law, where hearings are conducted in public view and frequently take years to resolve. While newspapers and magazines continue to co-operate swiftly with the Commission in the resolution of complaints, the Commission will continue to be the most appropriate and attractive forum for dealing with privacy complaints.

New Code

The first annual audit of the Code took place in 2004 by the Code Committee. The annual audit was proposed by Sir Christopher Meyer as part of his programme of 'permanent evolution' for the PCC. Submissions to the Code Committee were received from within the newspaper industry, from the general public and from the Commission itself. The Commission ratified the new Code in April 2004. More details about the new Code, and about the Code Committee’s work, are on page 17 of this report.

Advice 24 hours a day

One of the most important and useful services that the PCC provides is its 24-hour emergency pager. Members of the public can contact one of the Commission’s complaints officers at any time of night or day – normally to get advice about how to deal with unwanted approaches from journalists. In appropriate cases the Commission can contact editors to ask them to ensure that their reporters or photographers are acting within the terms of the Code. This, in turn, means that issues under Clause 4 (Harassment) are frequently resolved without the need to make a formal complaint.

In 2004, the Commission agreed that it would liaise with broadcasters in cases involving ‘media scrums’ which involve television and print journalists. Those worried about the presence of a number of journalists from any media can now simply contact the PCC with their concerns, and the Commission will ensure that their wishes are passed on to the relevant broadcasters. Such flexibility is only possible because the Commission is a non-statutory body.

Calls to the pager almost doubled in 2004 to just under 80. Its number is 07659 152656.

Charter Commissioner

In response to one of Sir Christopher’s proposals for Permanent Evolution, the office of the Charter Commissioner was established on 1st January 2004. The first Charter Commissioner, Sir Brian Cubbon, has already published his first annual report which can be accessed at www.pcc.org.uk.
The Charter Commissioner’s role is to assess concerns over the handling of complaints. He cannot review the substance of Commission decisions. He serves, in that sense, as an internal ‘judicial review’ mechanism, allowing complainants the opportunity to query and challenge the manner in which their complaints were handled by the PCC.

Sir Brian received 59 complaints in 2004, which represents a little under 2% of all the cases handled by the PCC. As a result, he made a number of recommendations regarding both specific cases and more general procedural points. All of the recommendations were accepted by the Commission.

Charter Compliance Panel

The Charter Compliance Panel was appointed from January 1st 2004 to audit the standard of service given to complainants by the Commission. Its members are Sir Brian Cubbon, Dame Ruth Runciman and Charles Wilson. Its creation was part of Sir Christopher Meyer’s plan for ‘permanent evolution’ of the Press Complaints Commission. It ensures that there is scrutiny of the Commission’s procedures. Last year it examined over 200 files, chosen at random.

The Panel publishes a separate annual report. Its report for 2004, which included a number of recommendations about how the Commission could improve its standard of service further, is available online at www.pccpapers.org.uk

Guidance notes

From time to time, the Commission publishes guidance notes which are designed to explain its approach to a particular issue under the Code, for instance by giving examples of inaccurate terminology. Last year it revised guidance – originally published in 1995 – on the subject of lottery winners, making clear the protection afforded by the Code to winners who opt for anonymity or publicity.

The Commission also published a note on the reporting of people accused of crime, following an approach from the Home Office, which was concerned about the position of people accused of – but not charged with – crime. Responding to these concerns, the Commission drew together the relevant provisions of the Code in a new Guidance Note. The notes can be accessed at www.pcc.org.uk

These Guidance Notes were notified to the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee.

At the end of 2004, the PCC announced that it would ask its press cuttings agency to scan the British press for the phrase ‘illegal asylum seeker’. A guidance note published in 2003 specifically stated that this phrase was likely to raise issues under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code. The Commission was alerted to research that suggested that, while incidences of the term had declined, they had not been eradicated. The Chairman undertook to bring any future examples to the attention of the editor concerned.

Commission changes

As the chairman has recorded in his report, Professor Robert Pinker retired during 2004 after 13 and a half years on the Commission. However, he will continue to be involved with the PCC’s training work and international activities.

He was replaced as a public member on the Commission by Adam Phillips, a market research Consultant, who has extensive experience of regulation of the market research industry. He is currently the Chair of the ESOMAR Professional Standards Committee. (ESOMAR is the world association of market research professionals.)

Mr Phillips was the second lay member appointed as a result of the open recruitment process announced as Sir Christopher’s 8-point plan for PCC reform, which was announced in 2003.

Appointments Commission

Members of the Commission, the Code of Practice Committee, and the Charter Compliance Panel are appointed by an independent Appointments Commission,as is the Charter Commissioner.

The Appointments Commission is chaired by Sir Christopher Meyer and is dominated by individuals who have no connection to the newspaper and magazine industry. The only representative of the industry is Philip Graf CBE, the chairman of Pressbof. The other members of the Commission are:

• Lord Mayhew of Twysden QC (former Secretary
of State for Northern Ireland);
• Sir David Clementi (Chairman, Prudential plc);
• Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill (Chairman, Edinburgh
Festival Fringe).

Financial Report

Extracts from the Commission’s audited accounts for the 2003 financial year appear below. Figures for 2004 were not available in time for the publication of this report, and will be published next year. The Commission’s income is derived solely from the Press Standards Board of Finance (Pressbof), which in turn raises a levy on the newspaper and magazine industry. This ensures that the Commission operates a system that is free to use and is no burden to the taxpayer. Pressbof publishes a separate annual report.