Express fined £4k for identity breach

Tuesday 30 July 2019

Lighthouse Media CI, Bailiwick Express’s parent company, has been fined £4,000 in the Magistrate’s Court after it decided to publish an article naming a family involved in an international case.

The company was charged with one offence for publishing material, “which intended, or was likely, to identify a child as being concerned in any proceedings before any court, either as being a child against, or in respect of, whom the proceedings are taken, or as being a witness in those proceedings.”

Legal Adviser Paul Lee told the Court today that the offence took place in earlier this year when Express decided to name a family involved in an international case, which he said was in breach of Article 73 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002. 

He explained the article was published at 06:00 and remained online until just before midday, when it was taken down immediately following a request from the Law Officers’ Department.

Pictured: Advocate Olaf Blakeley was representing Express’s parent company, Lighthouse Media CI.

Advocate Olaf Blakeley, representing Lighthouse Media CI, told the Court that Express’s editor, James Filleul, had been cooperative with the Police throughout the process, and had put in a 'guilty' plea, on behalf of the business, at the earliest opportunity.

He said that Express’s decision to publish the story, with the family’s names in it, had been based on a number of factors. 

Firstly, an international police force had published their own statement, clearly identifying the family involved - information which has been very widely reported in the national and international media, and so was therefore “available to everyone who went online.”

The lawyer said that the identity of those involved was “widely viewable and accessible”, along with photos, videos and interviews with them - a fact Assistant Magistrate Peter Harris accepted.

Pictured: Advocate Blakeley said Express was being “singled out” as the only media being prosecuted, as they were based in Jersey.

Advocate Blakeley told the Court that, despite that, Express was being “singled out” as the only media being prosecuted, as they are based in Jersey - even though stories in the international media, which also named the family, were written by reporters in the island at the time.

“In my respectful submission, there are arguments for jurisdiction that the Bailiwick could raise,” he added.

“The only actual link with the jurisdiction is that Lighthouse Media is a Jersey-incorporated company,” Advocate Blakeley said, before asking: “What is the key or trigger to jurisdiction?” 

Additionally, he argued that other local news coverage of the case also potentially broke the law as it identified the family indirectly, by containing details which could be easily linked to the international coverage which did name the family  – so-called ‘jigsaw’ identification, which is also illegal. 

Pictured: The lawyer argued that the Children Law didn't take into account “the modern form of media that now exists in the world wide web" when it was written.

The Assistant Magistrate contested if identification was seen as an issue, then Express could have decided not to publish any story about the case at all, to which Advocate Blakeley replied: “It is always an option; but the duty, the whole purpose is that they inform the public of local news.”

He explained that when publishing the story, Express was trying to ensure that readers would not be misled and that they would fully understand the nature of the story, as commenters on social media had already made incorrect assumptions about the case.

He argued that when the Children's Law was written, it hadn’t taken into account “the modern form of media that now exists in the worldwide web.”

Advocate Blakeley said that no harm was caused by the naming of the people involved, given that the names were already widely available - a point with which the Magistrate's Court agreed. 

The Court heard that Express had also contacted the Law Officers’ Department early on the day on which the story was published, to see if there were any problems with it. 

On the basis of this mitigation, Advocate Blakeley urged the court to impose a substantially lower fine than the £10,000 maximum the offence carries.

Pictured: Advocate Blakeley urged the Court to impose a lesser fine than the maximum of £10,000.

Returning his sentence, the Assistant Magistrate said the guilty plea was clearly consistent with the cooperation shown to the police investigation and to the speed at which the information had been removed when first brought to the attention of Express.

He said that, while the particular information published was widely available on the internet, the Jersey Law only applied to Jersey, and Jersey’s defendants. “Two wrongs do not make a right,” he said. 

He accepted that there will often be “difficult publishing decisions to be made”, but added: “There can be no excuse for naming a child.”

He went on to say that the primary focus of the Court whenever children are involved is the welfare of the child concerned, before acknowledging that no harm had been caused in this case by the publication.  

Taking into account the material factors, the mitigation and the documents provided, he imposed a £4,000 fine.