AddThis SmartLayers

Editor’s anger at police’s refusal to name dead man

A Scottish newspaper editor has branded as ‘bonkers’ a police force’s decision not to release the name of a man who drowned.

Drew Cochrane who has edited the Largs & Millport Weekly News for almost 38 years was told this week that his appeal for information from Strathclyde Police through a Freedom of Information request sent six months ago had been rejected.

He had asked the police to release the name of a man who died in October while diving in the Clyde which is in his publication area.

While stating that they released the names of deceased in road accidents, fire, industrial accidents and murder Strathclyde Police argued that under the Data Protection Act they did not have to release the name of the drowned man.

Said Drew: “Every death is a tragedy and distressing for someone, but if the media are to be denied basic information on these grounds it means that Strathclyde Police can refuse to give names of people who die in any accident which occurs in the public domain.

“Almost every conceivable public service was involved in the failed rescue for the man who drowned.

“I see no logic in citing the Data Protection Act in the case of a deceased person. This decision gives the police carte blanche to withhold names because someone somewhere will be distressed at sad news.”

The newly appointed acting freedom of information commissioner Margaret Keyse agreed with the chief constable that if they released the name it would cause distress to the family and contravene data protection.

Drew added that though it was a crazy decision, as editor of a small weekly newspaper it would be too expensive to appeal the case in the Court of Session.

 

11 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • April 10, 2012 at 9:07 am
    Permalink

    Do they not have to open an inquest on this, ASAP after the death, the name should be on public record, or is the law that different in Scotland ?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • April 10, 2012 at 9:18 am
    Permalink

    This is not an unusual occurrence. On more than one ocassion police and BTP have refused to identify a dead body. One was a rail suicide the other a drowned diver.
    In the case of the suicide they referred us to coroner’s office who would not give us any information without a name. The BTP press officer citing DPA assured us he would keep tabs on the case and tell us when the inquest was on. We fmissed the inquest by three months as the press officer in his wisdom had been assuring us it had not been listed despite weekly checks.
    In the other case the missing diver had been subject of a public appeal some time before but the cops would not confirm if dead body was same guy – again using DPA. We got confirmed name from family friend in end – not an ideal situation as they were very upset.
    DPA does not cover dead people!
    And the cops wonder why journalists break the law to get information.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • April 10, 2012 at 10:24 am
    Permalink

    Surely there will be/has been an inquest, or the Scottish version of one?
    You can’t have an inquest on an un-named person…

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • April 10, 2012 at 10:48 am
    Permalink

    Never mind citing data protection in the case of the casualty, The Data Protection Act explicitly does not apply to the dead. The police are simply wrong, but how many times do we hear organisations hiding behind ‘Data Protection’ as an excuse?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • April 10, 2012 at 11:06 am
    Permalink

    Well if you wanted to know what stand the new “acting” freedom of information commissioner would take, there it is.

    Faced with a completely understandable request from a newspaper for the release of the most basic information, she immediately sides with the chief constable.

    This simply continues a pretty dreadful tradition from the information commissioner’s office. Should really be known as the data protection commissioner.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • April 10, 2012 at 11:15 am
    Permalink

    Just to be devil’s advocate …

    Exactly how is the public interest better served by knowing the man’s name. If it’s revealed that it’s Fred Bloggs from Largs, that means nothing to 99 per cent of people. The remainder probably know who it is.
    Surely the public interest is more about the circumstances, prevention etc. Why the need to pursue this and cause distress.
    I’m a former chief sub/news editor who became tired of endless posturing by papers and their almost childish pursuit of tittle tattle and gossip which had nothing to do with the public interest

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • April 10, 2012 at 12:15 pm
    Permalink

    And we thought the police worked for us.

    Drew Cochrane is quite right to persue this.

    We really must et the police to obey the law. Then perhaps their other corruptions will also cease.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • April 10, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    Permalink

    Freddie,
    It’s a matter of public record and will be heard at a public inquiry so of course it’s a matter of public interest.
    Hardly see how reporting the full facts of a man’s drowning including the name is tittle tattle or gossip.
    Probably why you are an ex ed rather than a working one.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • April 10, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    Permalink

    @Freddie

    It is an interesting point. And true of all deaths really.

    Those who care know, those who don’t care, don’t need to know.

    But I guess it’d kill a lot of splashes.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • April 10, 2012 at 4:25 pm
    Permalink

    No inquests or coroners as such in Scotland. A Scottish fatal accident inquiry might have reached a verdict on preventing a similar fatality, but there appears to have been no FAI or circumstances to be ironed out by a sheriff, hence why getting the name is probably important.
    If perhaps the family has requested the name is not published, then fine.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • April 10, 2012 at 5:41 pm
    Permalink

    To Not Unusual
    So how far do we go with ‘the full facts’? His name is simply not relevant in this case. It’s like gossip because private individuals don’t want their private business reported (in a selective way, as newsppers do) yet the papers still try to do it anyway.
    I have no issue with people being named but if it’s not necessary and the family are distressed I can see no reason why it should happen.
    I would like it if the papers simply said it was all about selling editions and didn’t labour this ‘public interest’ rubbish. Most newsrooms positively salivate at misery so why we think they have people’s best interests at heart is beyond me.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)