Will the Press Complaints Commission rise phoenix like from the ashes?
Three months after Lord Leveson highlighted the PCC’s failings as an independent regulator of the press, its chairman is lobbying for the continuance of self regulation under a new constitution. Until the new body is established, the PCC continues to adjudicate complaints against newspapers and has heralded its latest decision, against the Kent & Sussex Courier, as demonstrative of “how rigorously the Commission enforces the [Editors’] Code’s stringent requirements ...”.
In what may seem a surprising decision to seasoned followers of PCC adjudications, the Commission has upheld a complaint on the basis of a strict application of the wording of the Editors’ Code of Practice. Clause 10 of the Code, which restricts the use of hidden cameras, clandestine listening devices and subterfuge unless it is in the public interest and only then if the material cannot be obtained by any other means, is intended to stop the press conducting undercover ‘fishing expeditions’ in the hope of finding some wrongdoing and is based on the individual’s personal rights to, and expectation of, privacy as enshrined in the Human Rights Act. The Code requires that clandestine devices and subterfuge only be used if there is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, the principle being that in those circumstances the breach of privacy can be justified.
The complainant in this case was a saleswoman who the Kent & Sussex Courier suspected may have been acting improperly by ‘targeting’ vulnerable individuals in financial difficulties to sell a scheme to generate income but which required the individuals to commit a considerable amount of up-front funding. A reporter, posing as the partner of a member of the public who arranged to meet with the saleswoman, had secretly recorded a meeting with her and published an article headlined ‘Saleswoman who targeted doctor's patients and poor is exposed’. Despite finding that the newspaper had uncovered material in the public interest and acted with “praiseworthy motives”, the PCC upheld the complaint, on the basis of a strict application of the Code, ruling that a newspaper could not retrospectively justify subterfuge where it had no prior evidence of wrongdoing, only speculation that wrongdoing was taking place.
Although a welcome conclusion, this smacks of too little, too late, without any serious adverse consequence for the publisher and no proposals to reduce the risk of this happening again. The only consequence for the newspaper is that it has to publish the PCC’s decision in its next edition and on its website. The broadcast media have similar provisions in their codes of conduct, but they are bolstered by an obligation in the Broadcasting Act to respect the privacy of individuals and companies. To ensure adequate protection, broadcasters’ codes routinely require written approval of a senior editorial representative in order to conduct any secret recording and, separately, to broadcast. If the press were to enshrine a similar rule into any reconstituted Code of Practice, it would offer a higher degree of protection and give the public more confidence that the press can effectively regulate itself.
