AddThis SmartLayers

Spy cam pic of 15-year-old shop sting youth 'published legally' – watchdog

by HoldtheFrontPage Staff Published 25 Jun 2007

Newspaper watchdogs have thrown out a complaint from a local council made after The Packet ran a security camera picture of a youngster on its pages.

The child was one used by Cornwall County Council in a sting on shopkeepers selling alcohol to under 18s.

But one shopkeeper took exception and handed his own images of the youth to Cornwall-based Packet Newspapers to let readers decide for themselves if the customer looked over 18.

The council, which is responsible for policing underage alcohol sales, told the Press Complaints Commission that the article last November intruded into the privacy of a child under 16 in breach of Clauses 3 (Privacy) and 6 (Children) in the Editors’ Code of Practice.

It also raised concerns that the publication of the image in the Falmouth and Truro editions was in breach of Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Code.

The article, ‘Sting was entrapment’ claim, reported that a Truro businessman had complained after Trading Standards officers ‘deceived’ his staff into selling alcohol to a 15-year-old.

The newspaper did not accept there was any intrusion into the child’s privacy in such a public place – where customers would expect to be seen by strangers, and be filmed on CCTV – but pointed out that there would also be an exceptional public interest in publishing the image.

The newspaper agreed, as a goodwill gesture, to suspend the picture from its website.

The Packet said that the transaction was in the public domain more than it would have normally been, as it consisted of an operation by council officers, with the intention of catching a shopkeeper breaking the law.

Seeing the picture was necessary for readers to be able to make a judgement on the shopkeeper’s claim that council had used a child who looked much older than his actual age, which amounted to ‘entrapment’.

It added that the child’s parents would have known when they consented to his volunteering that it might lead to him being a witness in a public prosecution, and the CCTV footage be used as evidence.

The council maintained that the publication of a photograph of a child, known to be voluntarily assisting the council, was neither appropriate nor in the public interest when balanced against the interests of the child.

Its head of legal services put forward a statement made by the child’s parents detailing the concerns they had about how the published image would affect him.

He also emphasised that the council always took care to preserve the anonymity of children voluntarily assisting it, and that it was the trading standards officers, rather than the child, that would give evidence in any criminal proceedings.

On Clause 3, which relates to privacy, the Commission said:

  • Photographs of people taken without their consent going about their normal business in small, quiet shops might be considered intrusive;
  • The youth was not an ordinary shopper;
  • The boy had been served alcohol, and the store issued with a fixed penalty, so the reputation of the shop was at stake;
  • The boy had not been named: the only information was the photograph and the fact he had been acting undercover for the council;
  • The shop owner clearly felt he had been the victim of entrapment and had made an official complaint. The merits of his claim rested entirely on the physical appearance of the boy.

    The Commission rejected the complaint because the activity “was not essentially private”, removing some of the protection that would normally be available to ordinary shoppers in such circumstances.

    In addition, the appearance of the boy was directly relevant to the story – which had become a matter of public dispute.

    Third, the information about the boy was limited and he was not named.

    The adjudication notice added: “There was a further consideration. To have found that the photograph breached the Code would significantly have interfered with the shop owner’s ability to conduct his arguments freely and fairly in public. Such a decision may therefore have been incompatible with his rights to free expression.”

    Under Clause 6, relating to children, the Commission was satisfied that the subject matter of the photograph did not concern his welfare in that there was nothing embarrassing or inherently private about the activity.

    The Commission also noted that the article used footage taken from a CCTV camera in the shop, which it did not consider such a camera to be ‘hidden’ under the terms of Clause 10 of the Code.

    • Spotted an error? Email the editor.