CLAUSE 2 (Privacy) makes clear that everyone
is entitled to respect for their private and family
life, home, physical and mental health, and
correspondence, including digital communications.
Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) says that any
approaches in circumstances of grief or shock must
be made with sensitivity. It is of course up to specific
individuals whether or not they want to talk to the
press, but if they are asked not to contact people,
journalists should desist from making approaches.
In the vast majority of cases, journalists comply with
the rules. If someone has made it clear that they do
PRIVACY
NOTICES
Reporting on evolving stories like the pandemic brings
with it particular challenges. The requirements of the
Editors’ Code – for accuracy, privacy, and the conduct of
journalists when approaching people – remain the same.
not want to speak to reporters, IPSO has a 24- hour
harassment helpline to offer support to those who
believe they are the subject of press intrusion.
IPSO can provide advice and has the power to issue
privacy notices to the industry which make it clear
that a person does not want to speak to the press.
Follow-up contact confirms that the notices are
extremely effective as a tool to tackle media scrums
or to prevent harassment. They can also pass on
concerns about the potential publication of intrusive
material or help protect families at a time of grief
or shock. For example, a notice may make clear
that those who have suffered a bereavement do not
want to talk to the press. In 2020 we issued privacy
notices for specific individuals affected by Covid as
well as for hospitals in respect of patient and staff
privacy. The pandemic has also highlighted some new
challenges in relation to privacy.
l Photography
In breaking news situations, photography is
important to give readers a real sense of what is
going on but care must be taken around privacy.
Journalists and editors do not generally need consent
to use photographs taken in a public places which
do not show private activity or reveal anything
private about someone. However, someone may
have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation
to a medical emergency, receiving medical care, or
perhaps times of personal grief or shock, even if they
are in a public place, so journalists should be alert to
this, especially in a rapidly developing scenario.
During the pandemic IPSO was made aware of
concerns relating to photography outside hospitals.
We contacted every hospital communications team
to make them aware of the privacy notice service.
l Privacy of individuals during the pandemic
In order to make sure what they are reporting is
accurate, journalists may want to approach people
to find out more about their experiences, but it is up
to individuals whether or not they choose to speak
to the press. IPSO made proactive approaches to
individuals where we thought it would be useful for
them to know about the service. IPSO’s Complaints
Committee also made an important privacy ruling
during the pandemic that a Covid-19 diagnosis
is a matter of health, and therefore information
about which individuals can have a reasonable
expectation of privacy. Editors invoking the public
interest in relation to a Covid diagnosis will need
to demonstrate that they reasonably believed
publication - or journalistic activity taken with
a view to publication – would both serve, and be
proportionate to, the public interest.
A WOMAN complained that blackpoolgazette.
co.uk breached Clause 2 (Privacy) in an article
which reported on a primary school class that
was told to self-isolate following a positive test
for Covid-19 by a sta member. The complainant
said that the article breached her privacy because
although she was not named in the article, she
was identiable as the sta member who had
tested positive. The result of her test had not
been common knowledge within the school
community, and she said the newspaper’s decision
to refer to her as “a sta member in a Year One
class” made her identiable to those within the
school community and beyond.
The newspaper did not accept that it had breached
the Code. While it accepted that the article could
identify the complainant to members of the
school’s community, it said that it was known
within the community prior to the publication
of the article that the complainant had received
a positive test result. The newspaper did not
accept that the complainant could be identied by
those beyond the local community and said that
there was a public interest in communicating the
information to minimise the risk of wider infection.
In deciding whether the woman’s privacy had
been breached, IPSO’s Complaints Committee
had to consider whether the complainant was
identiable from the information contained
in the article, whether the complainant had a
reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of
her diagnosis, and whether, if the complainant
did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the
publication of the information be justied in the
public interest.
The Committee found that the article included
sucient information to identify the complainant
as the recipient of the positive test result. Whether
an individual has contracted Covid-19 is clearly a
matter relating to their health, and therefore was
information about which the complainant had a
reasonable expectation of privacy. The publication
was entitled to make its assessment about what
information was in the public interest, but in the
view of the Committee, there was insucient
justication that the public interest outweighed
the intrusion into the complainant’s privacy. The
complaint was upheld and an adjudication was
required, with links to the newspaper’s website
and Facebook page.
Individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy
around information to their health. Any disclosure of such
information must be justified in the public interest
IPSO contacted every hospital communications team to
make them aware of our privacy notice service
IPSO COVID REPORT 27IPSO COVID REPORT26
A Woman blackpoolgazette.co.ukPRIVACY
UPHELD