A newspaper’s court report which revealed the street name of a couple in a surrogate baby deal led them to complain to the editor about the intrusion.

The Southern Daily Echo was fully entitled to publish the information but editor Ian Murray agreed not to run it again.

Despite his promise, the street name later crept into the copy again – and this time the man took his grievance to the Press Complaints Commission, which examined the circumstances more closely.

The man had also complained to the Commission about the original article – about the prosecution of a woman who had tried to enter into an illegal surrogacy arrangement with them, and which included the street name.

But after the Echo agreed not to publish it again, a breakdown in communication meant that on May 22, the address was included in an article headlined ‘Surrogate mum was answer to our prayers’.

The man claimed this meant the paper had breached clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice, by publishing what he deemed to be intrusive material.

Echo editor Ian Murray apologised for the error, but said that he did not believe the Editors’ Code of Practice had been breached – and the newspaper watchdog agreed.

He also said the couple appeared to have embraced publicity by appearing on television and selling their story to a national newspaper – although the complainant said neither of these had revealed his address.

The Commission said that as the couple were at the centre of a story attracting national attention, it was inevitable to receive publicity in their local paper, and it did not generally consider the name of the street where an individual lives to be a matter which inherently concerns their private life.

It added that there was “no reason” for it to be any different in this case, but was pleased that the editor have given undertakings about future coverage.

And although there had been a regrettable oversight, it noted that the editor had apologised and ensured that steps would be taken to ensure the street name wasn’t published in future, and so there was no evidence that he had acted in bad faith.

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index