The complainant was a witness in a murder trial during the course of which evidence was given about many details of her private life. The article published in the Sunday Independent on 31 January 2010 included general background information about the complainant’s childhood, school and family, as well as other material based on the evidence given by her in court.
Any alleged breach of privacy has to be considered on its merits in the context of the Code of Practice.
The publication of any evidence given during the course of a court case is protected by the Code of Practice, since it is material that is on the public record.
The journalistic publication of personal information about an individual is not, in itself, evidence of a breach of the Code of Practice, which defines the right to privacy in terms of the “private and family life, home and correspondence” of citizens. In the very specific circumstances and context of the court case concerned, there was a legitimate journalistic interest in providing additional information about the complainant. For that reason, the issue is whether the information published about the complainant, other than information derived from the evidence given in the trial, was a breach of her privacy under Principle 5 of the Code.
The personal information published about the complainant in this article, other than material about her private life that featured in evidence, was generally inconsequential, or already in the public domain, and of a type that can reasonably be regarded as a legitimate subject for journalistic enquiry. In this respect the article did not present a breach of Principle 5 of the Code of Practice.