Press Complaints Commission dismiss police officer's complaint against News Shopper

Pc Ian Collis, who works in Lewisham, was given a community order in July after magistrates heard he had attacked a member of the public while off-duty.

He claimed our coverage of his court case put him at risk of harm from the public, but the PCC disagreed.

Their full adjudication is here (the complainant referred to is PC Collis): The complainant was a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police (currently suspended from duty) who had been found guilty of assault at Bromley Magistrates’ Court in relation to an incident that had taken place while he was off duty.

He was concerned that the newspaper had published his partial address in a court report about the case.

The complainant considered that the publication of this information (the name of the street where he lives with his family) could pose a risk of serious harm to himself and his family from individuals he had encountered in the course of his work.

His wife also worked with individuals who could potentially pose a risk to the family. He regarded the publication of the information – along with other material in the report about his mental health and the distress he had felt after losing his father – as a breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code.

The complainant had previously requested (via the Metropolitan Police Service press office) that the newspaper remove the partial address from its online report and refrain from publishing this detail in the print edition, but the newspaper had declined to do so.

Under the terms of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code, “Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence.”

However, the Commission generally does not consider that the whereabouts of the street on which an individual lives is a matter that concerns their private and family life.

It was also relevant that the context was a report of court proceedings.

The Commission has ruled (Bretherick v County Times) that “Newspapers are generally entitled to include details of a person’s address in reports of criminal cases against them, not least because addresses are likely to be given in open court.

"There is also a general public interest in the identification of individuals who have been charged with criminal offences. Correct identification will often involve the publication of at least a partial address.”

The complainant’s counsel had not requested a legal order restricting the publication of his address.

Whilst the newspaper could be expected not to reveal an address where there were specific security concerns, the existence or strong likelihood of a specific threat needs to be established before this applies.

The Commission has made clear (A man v Perthshire Advertiser) that it is reluctant to accept the nature of an individual’s occupation in itself as a sufficient basis for concluding that such a threat existed.

It sympathised with the complainant’s concern for his own safety and that of his family, but he had not provided evidence of a specific threat. The Commission concluded therefore that the newspaper had been at liberty to publish his address.

The Commission next considered the complainant’s concerns that the newspaper had published information relating to his mental health and the fact that he had suffered from “psychological issues” after the death of his father.

The complainant had not disputed the article’s account that this information had been heard in open court, introduced by his counsel in mitigation.

The Code makes clear that the Commission “will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain”.

As a result of the court proceedings, this information had been established in the public domain and was not subject to reporting restrictions; the newspaper had therefore been entitled to report it.

The Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 3 in relation to its republication. There was no breach of the Code on this occasion.