The Press Complaints Commission has upheld a complaint against a weekly newspaper in West Wales over an intrusion into a child’s privacy.

An article in the Aberystwyth-based Cambrian News reported criticisms of a council decision to put the contract for running a school taxi service for disabled children out to tender.

However the parents of one of the children complained that their child’s name, age, and details of his medical condition had been published without their consent.

The watchdog upheld the complaint under both Clause 3 (Privacy) and 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The child’s parents told the PCC that while they had agreed to the publication of a photograph of their son to accompany the article, it was on the condition that neither his name, nor information about the medical condition, would be also be published

In its defence, the newspaper said that the information had been supplied by the existing driver of the taxi service, whom it believed was acting on the parents’ behalf.

However it recognised that it ought to have obtained the consent of the parents before publishing information about the child, and apologised for not having done so.

The Commission ruled that as the information about the child’s medical condition had been provided by a third party, the newspaper had a responsibility to obtain the consent of the parents prior to publication.

PCC Director Stephen Abell commented: “The Editors’ Code makes clear that ‘everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence’ and requires editors to justify intrusions without consent.

“This case demonstrates the paramount need for newspapers and magazines to establish – in advance of publication – exactly which is the competent authority to grant consent.

“The Cambrian News failed to take the necessary steps prior to publication and the Commission upheld the complaint as a result.”

The commission said that the fact that the newpaper appeared not to have taken any steps to verify independently that consent had been given was “inadequate” in terms of the requirements of Clause 3 and Clause 6 of the Editors’ Code.