Adjudication No. 157 (March 1983) [1983] APC 8

ADJUDICATION No. 157 (March 1983)

By letter of 22 October 1982, David Ross and Partners, Solicitors, complained to the Press Council on behalf of a Mrs Buksh on account of an illustration, text and poster relating to the Buksh family.

It appears that Mr and Mrs Buksh had been sentenced to imprisonment after convictions for offences in which an elder daughter of Mr Buksh was killed. The photo showed Mrs Buksh (previously released from custody) accompanying Mr Buksh and their younger daughter when Mr Buksh, who served a longer sentence than his wife, was released.

The initial letter of claim said that the publication of the names of these persons had been prohibited by a Judge of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal during the hearing of an appeal in that Tribunal against a deportation order, and, on inquiry by the council's executive secretary, it appeared that legal action for contempt of court might be contemplated, in which case a waiver might (if it was not already too late) be required. He informed the solicitors accordingly, and a waiver signed by Mr and Mrs Buksh was received in the office.

In a further letter of 8 November, the solicitors pressed the complaint, saying that the question of a contempt had been left in the hands of the Court. The grounds of complaint were further developed by claims that the photo had been taken without permission and that a remark attributed to Mrs Buksh had not been made.

The complaint was then referred to the Editorial Manager of the newspaper, who referred to the repeated suggestions of legal action and declined comment except to claim that the newspaper had acted "in accordance with the law and the ethics of journalism".

It seems clear to the Press Council that the photo, text and poster made no reference to the deportation proceedings and could not readily have been related to them by the reading public, nor does it appear that any contempt proceedings were in fact taken. As to the quoted statement by Mrs Buksh, there is a question of fact which the council cannot determine, and in any event the alleged statement is innocuous. The photograph was evidently taken in a public place, and together with the text deals with a question of public interest. There is no possible privacy issue as to the adults. The child is not named and is not identifiable by the photo.

The complaint is dismissed.