The Eastbourne Gazette has been rapped for interviewing a man in hospital without the correct permission.

The interview did not result in a published article.

But the Press Complaints Commission ruled that such material still needed to be gathered in accordance with the requirements of the Editors’ Code of Practice – and this way of working needed to be ensured by the editor.

The Commission said that the breach of the code was “so serious” there was no action that could provide an effective remedy.

And the newspaper said that the journalist involved had subsequently been sacked, following a disciplinary hearing.

Emily Jennings complained that a reporter from the Eastbourne Gazette approached both her and members of her family following a motorcycle accident that left her father in a coma, in breach of Clauses 4 (Harassment) and 9 (Hospitals).

The complaint was upheld.

She said that On August 4, during his first visit home after regaining consciousness, a journalist approached the house and was told that the family would call him at a more appropriate time if they wished to speak about the accident.

The journalist left an answerphone message later in the week, and telephoned again on August 9 asking for permission to visit the complainant’s father – which was firmly denied.

But that day the journalist entered the hospital without identifying himself and questioned the complainant’s father despite the fact that his injuries were such that ‘he barely knew his own name’.

The newspaper said it agreed to the “basic facts of the case”, but said the complainant’s father had been happy to talk to the journalist on his first visit to the house.

Both parties agreed that the time was inappropriate. Then the paper said he had again been happy to talk to them in hospital, three weeks after the accident.

It said that when the complainant telephoned the newspaper it apologised verbally and promised not to publish any material, an undertaking it had honoured.

It also apologised to the complainant in writing, and explained that the journalist had been dismissed following a disciplinary hearing.

The PCC said that while there was some dispute about the response to the journalist’s initial approach, the request to desist should have been heeded prior to the hospital visit.

The commission ruled that there had been a clear breach of Clause 9 of the Code which states that journalists or photographers making enquiries at hospitals or similar institutions must identify themselves to a responsible executive and obtain permission before entering non-public areas.

It also noted with approval that the newspaper had apologised in writing, undertaken not to publish the material, and taken disciplinary action against the journalist, but said that in this instance this was a serious breach of the Code, which no action could effectively remedy.

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index