The Press Complaints Commission has ruled that the newspaper breached the Editors' Code in printing a picture of child without her adopted parents' consent
This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.
The Press Complaints Commission has upheld a complaint against the South Wales Guardian after the paper printed a photograph of the child of a convicted murderer.
According to a release from the PCC, the photograph was printed alongside an interview with the child's grandmother.
In the course of the interview, she had spoken about her daughter's appeal and the adoption of her granddaughter as a result of the conviction in 2008.
The PCC received a complaint from the child's adopted parents, who argued that they had not consented to publication and were concerned that the child, who was three when the article was published and 13 months in the photograph, had been identified as a result.
The newspaper said that the photo had been authorised by the child's biological mother and grandmother. It argued that the information about the child had not been unduly intrusive, and that the consequences of the crime committed by the child's mother - as well as the actions of social services with regard to the adoption - could legitimately be the subject of public scrutiny in this way.
The PCC ruled that there had been a breach of Clause 6 (ii) of the Editors' Code, which states that "a child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child's welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents".
The commission judged that the photo, in the context of an article about the conviction of the child's mother for murder and the impact of the adoption, clearly involved the child's welfare. It found that the consent of the custodial parents had not been obtained before publication and there was not an exceptional public interest to justify this.
In the release, Stephen Abell, director of the PCC, said: "The Editors' Code correctly goes to exceptional lengths to safeguard children and provides them with strong protection from intrusive attention. A breach of the Code such as this would require an exceptional public interest to override the normally paramount interests of the child.
"In this case, the Commission did not consider that there were exceptional public interest grounds specifically to justify the publication of the picture (even though it did recognise there was a general public interest in the story)."
