Case Studies:

1: Man vs Northwich Guardian

• Clause 6 applies as the boy is 15 years old and could be protected.
• Public right to know takes priority as it is a serious crime.
• Boy has already posted video on YouTube - so right to privacy is gone.
• Complaint withdrawn.

2: Man vs Zoo Magazine

• Clause 6 applies as child is 10 years old. 
• Potential ridicule of girl by magazine is intruding on childs life.
• Child's face should be blurred, for the sake of child.
• However, man sounds as if he is trying to cover up for bad parenting.
• Complaint stands.

3: Man vs Sunday Times

• Clause 4 applies as it could be seen as harrassment of the child.
• Clause 6 applies as the boy is only 14 and the reporter is not only harrassing a child, but attempting to obtain photos of another child without the schools permission.
• Complaint stands.

4: Women vs The Independent

• Clause 3 applies as the article is an intrusion into the women's private life.
• Not public information as the theatre has official press releases which should be adheared to.
• Complaint stands.

5: Women vs The Sun

• Clause 5 applies as it could be intrusion into grief and shock.
• However, paper insists that it did not treat the death inappropriately.
• Incident happened in public place with many onlookers.
• Complaint withdrawn.

6: Women vs Eastbourne Gazette

• Clause 4 applies as the reporter is harrassing the family and the man.
• Clause 8 applies as the reporter is clearly ignoring the fact that he must have permission from hospital authority to see the patient let alone try to ask them questions.
• Complaint stands.

7: Police Officer vs Sunday Telegraph

• Clause 10 applies as the paper admitted to subterfuge.
• Clause 3 applies as the issue is one about the policewoman's right to privacy, which clearly wasn't respected.
• However, it may be argued that the public have a right to know as a result of the position she holds within the local society.
• Arguement withdrawn.

8: Paul McCartney vs Hello! Magazine

• Clause 3 applies as the issue regards his right to privacy.
• However he is a celebrity in a very public place and so cannot expect privacy.
• Clause 5 applies as it is intrusion into grief of his wifes death.
• This should have been treated respectfully be the press.
• Complaint stands.