A local paper has been rapped for invading a man’s privacy by taking and publishing a photograph of him without his consent.

The Press Complaints Commission ruled that although the photograph was taken in a cafe, individuals would still have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the paper should not have taken the photo without consent.

The photograph was one of a number included with a review of a local restaurant in the Dorking Advertiser.

Hugh Tunbridge complained to the PCC that an article headlined ‘Skullduggery over a butterscotch tart’, published in the Advertiser in February included a photograph of him without his consent in breach of Clause 4 of the Code of Practice, which covers harassment.

The complaint was upheld.

The complainant said that pictures had been taken secretly and objected to a particular photograph in which he and his dining companion were clearly visible, and which had been taken and published without his knowledge or consent.

Its publication, he said, demonstrated a lack of respect for both himself and his companion, as the reporter had no knowledge of their identities or the circumstances of their meeting.

The Dorking Advertiser apologised for any distress that may have been caused by the piece, but did not consider that the Code had been breached.

It contended that a café was a public place – as any member of the public had a right of free entry – and therefore that the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

It also maintained that the photographer had used a standard camera for the pictures, which he had not sought to conceal, and that the pictures were merely illustrative of the atmosphere of the restaurant and did not seek to intrude into the privacy of its clientele.

However, as a matter of courtesy, the paper stated that in the future reporters would consult the restaurant owners after their (the reporters) meal and obtain permission to take illustrative pictures. The newspaper also offered to set the record straight with a published item regarding the circumstances surrounding the photograph.

The PCC ruling said: “The Commission considered that, while the context of the photograph’s use might appear to have been trivial, an important matter of principle was at stake.

“Clause 3 of the Code makes clear that private places are ‘public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy’ while Clause 4 adds that individuals must not be photographed in such places without their consent.

“The Commission has made clear before that there may be places such as hotels which are accessible to the public where an individual will still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

“In this case the Commission considered that customers of a quiet cafe could expect to sit inside such an establishment without having to worry that surreptitious photographs would be taken of them and published in newspapers.

“There was no suggestion that the complainant was easily visible from the street and the Commission considered that all the circumstances suggested that he and his companion were clearly in a place where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Commenting on the case, Professor Robert Pinker, acting chairman of the PCC, said: “The complaint from Mr Tunbridge underlines that intrusion into privacy – and the work of the Commission in this area – is not just about the rich and famous.

“This was an important case, brought to us by somebody not before in the public eye about his local newspaper – which has allowed us to continue building up our important body of privacy case law.”

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index