AddThis SmartLayers

Convicted fraudster loses second photo complaint against daily

A convicted fraudster has had a complaint about a regional daily photographing her rejected for the second time.

Sharon Dickinson claimed she was harassed by a Northern Echo photographer while entering Durham Crown Court.

But the Independent Press Standards Organisation rejected her complaint, in which she also claimed her privacy had been breached.

The decision echoed that of a similar complaint made by Dickinson after the Darlington-based daily covered a previous appearance in court in 2018.

Durham Crown court

Complaining under Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Dickinson said that the picture of her entering the court building was taken without her consent and claimed the photographer who took it was hiding behind a pillar and was obscured by a bush.

She provided photos of the photographer and of the location from which the photo was taken, saying this behaviour had unnerved her and was therefore harassment.

Dickinson added that, because she was not aware of the photographer at first, she had not had the opportunity to disguise or cover her face.

The Echo denied a breach of Code stated that the photographer was not hiding or disguised, saying there was nowhere else for the photographer to wait, other than behind the wall, pillars or foliage, because photographers are not allowed within court property.

It stated that as court proceedings are public, a defendant in a court case has no reasonable expectation of privacy over their identity or a picture merely revealing it.

It did not accept that the taking of a photograph constituted harassment because defendants should expect to be identified or photographed when visiting court as part of the principle of open justice.

IPSO found the photo was taken at a venue which is generally open to, and accessible by, members of the public, while the court proceedings were open to the public.

It said Dickinson was not engaged in any private activity and the photograph only revealed her likeness, noting she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in these circumstances.

The Committee further found there had not been any exchange between the complainant and the photographer and there was no basis to find that a request to desist had been made.

While Dickinson had been startled by the presence of the photographer in the vicinity of the court, this did not constitute “intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit” in these circumstances.

The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.