The Welwyn and Hatfield Times has been rapped for interviewing a 10-year-old boy without the correct permission.

The interview did not result in a published article.

But the Press Complaints Commission still ruled that such material needed to be gathered in accordance with the requirements of the Editors' Code of Practice, and consent from a legal guardian should have been given, in line with Clause 6 (Children).

The code states that young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion and that journalists must not interview or photograph a child under the age of 16 without the consent of a parent or other adult who is responsible for the child.

The PCC found a journalist from the paper had not spoken to the boy's legal guardian, but to his mother's partner who was not in a position to give consent, before telephoning the boy at school.

Therefore the complaint was upheld.

Sally Everitt and Andy Brick complained that a reporter from the Welwyn and Hatfield Times had interviewed Sally's son without proper consent.

The journalist had spoken to Andy – not the boy's legal guardian – who had said that, while there probably would not be a problem, he would have to check with the boy's mother. He asked the journalist to call back once he had had the chance to speak to his partner.

The complainants said that the journalist had then phoned the school and interviewed the boy, who had appeared in a television programme, and claimed that she was doing so with consent. She did not call the complainants back.

The newspaper said that the journalist had only phoned the school once Andy Brick had said it 'wouldn’t be a problem' for the journalist to speak to the child.

The paper accepted that there appeared to have been a misunderstanding about whether she could telephone the boy at school and the journalist had therefore apologised to the complainants and the paper had agreed not to publish anything resulting from the interview.

The PCC ruled that while the newspaper suggested that there had been a misunderstanding, the wording of Clause 6 (Children) should be sufficiently clear to prevent any such confusion.

It added that it appreciated that nothing had been published but the journalist should not have telephoned the boy at school without proper consent.

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index