Adjudication No. 916 (April 1997) [1997] APC 17

ADJUDICATION No. 916 (April 1997)

The Australian Press Council has described as a blatant example of the unjustified breach of privacy the publication by The Daily Telegraph, Sydney, of sneak photographs of Senator Bob Woods and his wife Jane in private discussion in the backyard of their home.

The complaint by James Gallagher, of Castle Cove, who asserted that publication of the photographs breached three Press Council principles - covering privacy, the obtaining of news by unfair means, and the issue of taste - has been upheld.

These matters often call forth subjective judgments by readers. But the Press Council is bound by its rules to balance elements of press intrusiveness against the over-riding principle of public interest - which, broadly, means publication of matters the public is entitled to know about.

In this case Senator Woods was emerging from a relationship with woman who was a Liberal Party worker. At the time the photographs were taken he had returned to the family home. He was also being investigated by Federal Police over allegations he had rorted his Parliamentary expenses.

These were issues of public interest, and the Telegraph had every right to explore those issues.

The photographs were taken by a photographer standing outside the house. Despite the distance involved, the photographic expertise gave the pictures the appearance of having been taken close to Senator Woods and his wife. Indeed they looked as if they had been taken in the couple's backyard.

The pictures were published on the front page and page 3 of the Telegraph of 7 February.

The headline accompanying the front-page picture of a private and apparently emotional discussion between the couple read: "In the garden of their home, a senator and his wife confront a scandal."

The story on page one set out the Telegraph's interpretation of its photographs: "The body language said it all ... tense backyard meeting ... but she remained steely-eyed."

Nothing in the story suggested the manner in which the Telegraph obtained its pictures.

In the view of the Press Council publication of the photographs was a blatant example of a breach of privacy. But was publication justified by public interest?

The Telegraph claimed it was, in its written response to the Press Council. Its assistant editor set out that there was no trespass involved, so the pictures were legal. As to the public interest, Senator Woods was a public figure involved in issues of legitimate interest to the public, who after all paid his salary, and his wife was involved in the issues being aired before the public.

Essentially, the defence extended the public's right to know to a right to publish the sneak photographs.

The Press Council does not accept this argument. It regards publication of the pictures as a breach of its principle relating to "respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals" and sees no compelling public interest in the obtaining and publication of pictures of this kind.