A secretary accused of stealing around £39,000 from the school where she worked has had her complaint about a regional daily’s photograph of her thrown out by the press watchdog.
Sharon Dickinson went to the Independent Press Standards Organisation after it published a photo of her outside court alongside two articles.
Ms Dickinson, pictured, claimed the articles had intruded into her privacy because they featured a photograph of her taken without her permission.
But IPSO sided with the Echo saying the picture, below, did not constitute private information.
Ms Dickinson, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud by abuse of position and theft by employee and will stand trial later this year, claimed the Darlington-based Echo had breached Clauses 2 (Privacy) and 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
In her complaint to IPSO, she claimed the photographer who took the picture had run towards her on the path outside the court and continually tried to take photographs of her, despite her having a coat covering her face and telling him several times that she did not want her photograph taken.
Ms Dickinson was also concerned that the articles included her name and address.
Denying a breach of Code, the Echo cited the importance of open justice and the role of the press in ensuring that those who cannot attend court are updated.
Due to the public nature of court proceedings, the newspaper said Ms Dickinson could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The photographer asserted that he was waiting outside the court next to a bin on a public footpath when she came around the corner and covered her face straight away.
He took her photograph as she came towards him, and said he did not move from the bin or hear Ms Dickinson say anything to him.
IPSO acknowledged that Ms Dickinson’s account of her encounter differed to that offered by the Echo, but found that the photographer’s actions did not amount to harassment in any case.
The photo was taken in a public place outside a court building and it only showed Ms Dickinson’s partially obscured likeness, while IPSO found the Echo was entitled to report her name and address because they were heard in open court.
The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
How many more of these time-wasters will IPSO tolerate?
Report this comment
I absolutely agree, Johnners. But she may have had more luck if she’d complained to the police about photography “within the precincts of the court”. It still amazes me how many snappers wrongly believe they’re on safe ground because they happen to be in the open air..
Report this comment
Digger. That’s a point that immediately struck me. It’s considered contempt of court to take photographs within a certain distance of a court, though you do see a lot of “snatches” on the steps of the court. I guess no-one bothers to complain. In this case I imagine the photographer was experienced enough to stand outside the boundary.
Where is the precinct? Might make a decent discussion piece on HTFP sometime?
As for the complaint I hope IPSO didn’t spend too much time on this one. She had no chance.
Report this comment
I know Darlo Mags and the picture’s been taken with a long lens from outside the precinct which is helpfully defined by a low wall.
Reporters doing close-up snatches with mobile phones put themselves at risk of contempt and violence from their subject and associates.
Report this comment
A good point ElectricPics about mobile phones, especially in the hands of an inexperienced reporter.Some of these characters emerging from court have short tempers and look like they would do damage.
Report this comment