|
A statutory but independent, self-regulatory commission to deal with complaints on unjustifiable privacy infringements by newspapers and magazines has been proposed to better protect people from unwarranted privacy invasion.
Law Reform Commission Privacy Sub-committee chairman John Bacon-Shone said the proposed commission's remit was specifically restricted to issues of privacy.
"We are acutely aware of the importance of speech and press freedoms and have recommended the creation of the new body only after we are satisfied that it will not compromise those freedoms," he said.
New body entirely independent
The statutory commission will not be influenced or controlled by the Government or other third parties.
Mr Bacon-Shone said: "The Government would have no role to play in the nomination of members, the formulation of standards, or the adjudication of complaints."
In the Privacy & Media Intrusion Report published today, the commission considered the current self-regulatory measures adopted by the press industry and the journalistic profession had not been effective in protecting people from unwarranted invasion of privacy by the print media.
It therefore proposed the creation of a statutory but independent and self-regulating commission to deal with complaints of unjustifiable infringements of privacy by newspapers and magazines. For details of the full report, click here.
This body will be self-regulated and modelled on the Press Council, but will have jurisdiction over all newspapers and magazines.
Retired judge to join body
Comprised of press members representing their industry and the journalistic profession and the general public and victims of press intrusion, the body will include a retired judge nominated by the Judiciary.
Press members will be nominated by their sector and the journalism teaching profession. The public will be nominated by professional bodies and non-governmental organisations specified in the legislation.
Press privacy code to be drawn up
The commission must draw up a press privacy code, which must make allowances for investigative journalism and publications that can be justified in the public interest. The code may be drafted by the press members or by a code committee appointed by the commission.
The commission will have powers to deal with complaints about breaches of the code by newspapers and magazines. It will be able to initiate an investigation without complaint or investigate a complaint made by a third party only if the investigation can be justified on the grounds of public interest.
It may advise, warn or reprimand an offending publisher, and require it to publish a correction or the commission's findings and decision. Where an offending publisher fails to publish a correction or the findings and decision, the commission may apply to the court for an order requiring the publisher to take any specified action.
However, a publisher, but not the complainant, aggrieved by an adverse decision of the commission should have the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The report also proposes that all complaints alleging breaches of the Press Privacy Code should be treated as directed against the publishers in question, not the journalists or editors concerned.
No right to compel source disclosure
The commission should not have power to compel a journalist to give evidence and to disclose their source of information. Neither should the commission have the power to award compensation to a victim, impose a fine on an offending publisher or order an offending publisher to make an apology.
The Law Reform Commission today also released the Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy Report, which concludes that every person should be entitled to seek civil remedies for invasion of privacy that is unwarranted in the circumstances.
Civil remedies for privacy invasion proposed
The report recommends that any people who, without justification, intrude upon the solitude or seclusion of another in circumstances where the latter has a reasonable expectation of privacy should be liable under the law of tort if the intrusion is seriously offensive or objectionable to a reasonable people.
However, it should be a defence to an action for the intrusion tort to show that the act in question was necessary for:
* the protection of the people or property of the defendant or another;
* the prevention, detection or investigation of crime;
* the prevention, preclusion or redress of unlawful or seriously improper conduct; or,
* the protection of national security or security in respect of Hong Kong;
The report also recommends that anyone who, without justification, gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another should be liable under the law of tort if the publicity is of a kind that will be seriously offensive or objectionable to a reasonable people and he knows that the publicity would be seriously offensive or objectionable to such a people.
However, it should be a defence to an action for unwarranted publicity to show that the publicity is in the public interest. To read the full report, click here.
Go To Top
|
