The complaint concerned the publication of a photograph of a man receiving treatment by the emergency services following the crash of his glider into a field.
The complainant was the man's wife, who argued that the photograph, which was published the day after the incident, was intrusive: it had been taken without consent in the immediate aftermath of the accident when her husband was in shock. The newspaper explained that the images had been supplied by the search and rescue team, which had provided similar images of such scenes over a number of years to publicise its work. It said that while it understood the complainant's concerns, its coverage had not been gratuitous: it had made enquiries with the police who had provided detailed information about the injuries (which were not life-threatening). It also pointed out that parts of the rescue had been filmed by the BBC and subsequently broadcast with consent, although it had not been aware of this at the time of publication. The complainant said that the film crew had specifically obtained consent to record the treatment at the time and had later confirmed this before it was broadcast.
The PCC's case law makes clear that "timing is an important consideration" for the Commission when it examines complaints framed under Clause 5. In its adjudication, the Commission emphasised that it had strong regard for the important role of newspapers in informing their readers about significant events in the public interest, and it acknowledged that the newspaper's pursuit of the story was legitimate. Nonetheless, it was "not persuaded that the publication of a revealing photograph of a person receiving medical treatment, published so soon after the accident without consent, could be said reasonably to be sensitive." The complaint was upheld on that basis.
Separate complaints under Clause 5 in relation to a second photograph that showed the scene (including the tail number of the glider) but did not show the complainant's husband, and under Clause 3 (Privacy) in relation to both articles, were not upheld.
Stephen Abell (pictured), Director of the PCC, said: "Ultimately, whilst newspapers are entitled to report matters of relevance to readers, they need to ensure that publication is handled sensitively in line with the requirement of the Code. The Commission decided that in publishing a photograph of a man in a state of shock and upset, the newspaper fell short of this requirement on this occasion. It has upheld the complaint as a result".
To read the adjudication, which has been published on page 4 of this week's edition of the newspaper, please click here. To read the adjudication on the newspaper's website, please click here
The prominence of the adjudication was agreed by the PCC Director in advance of publication, as required by a Code change which took effect on 1 January 2012.
A complaint made by the complainant under Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors' Code of Practice was not upheld by the Commission.
The Editors' Code of Practice can be read in full here
