By Amber Melville-Brown, David Price Solicitors and Advocates, London


Mum's the word

The delivery of the glad tidings of pregnancy is a matter for the expectant mother, not a national newspaper. This is the finding of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in a complaint against The Sun by singer Charlotte Church, reiterating what it said in a ruling against The Independent newspaper in Riding v Independent (see [2006] Gazette, 7 September, 30).



In Riding, the PCC had made clear that 'as a matter of common sense, newspapers and magazines should not reveal news of an individual's pregnancy without consent before the 12-week scan, unless the information is known to such an extent that it would be perverse not to refer to it. This is because of the possibility of complications or miscarriage... and because it should be down to the individual when to share the news with her family and friends in the early phase of a pregnancy'.



The Sun breached clause 3 of the Editors' Code of Practice by its publication reporting on the speculation of Charlotte Church's pregnancy. The code provides that: 'Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individuals' private life without consent.'



The newspaper approached the complainant's PR agent in advance of publication, seeking comment on information received that she was pregnant. She replied that such information was private and no comment would be provided, but confirmed that she was 'not more than 12 weeks pregnant' and that if Ms Church was pregnant, no statement would be made until after the 12-week scan or when a doctor said it would be safe to tell family and friends.



The Sun proceeded to publish an article reporting the rumour of her pregnancy and in defence of the complaint argued that it did so given the 'very public change in behaviour when it came to her consumption of alcohol and cigarettes'. The PCC took a dim view of this, reminding the media in its ruling that it had 'recently made clear that newspapers should not reveal the fact of someone's pregnancy before the 12-week scan without consent and when the information is not known to any significant degree'.



It did not accept that the newspaper could rely on the argument that it was merely reporting speculation as it knew from the complainant's PR agent that the fact was true, but that she did not at that stage want openly to comment on it. According to the PCC, 'the newspaper had simply tried to circumvent the privacy provisions of the code by presenting the story as speculation. This was not acceptable within the spirit of the code'.



Matters of a medical or quasi-medical nature will in most cases engage the article 8 right to respect for private life of a claimant, and early pregnancy will come within that category. While the fact of a pregnancy may become only too obvious in its latter stages, it is generally not disclosed, even to close friends and family, before the 12-week scan and the expectant mother has a legitimate expectation of privacy as regards this information at that stage.



Privacy law in the UK may be in its infancy, but each decision that is made - whether by our judiciary or by the regulators which, by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998, may be taken into account by the courts - builds a body of relevant law and guidance to assist the courts, claimants and the media alike. The media may be a reluctant step-parent to a growing privacy law which is proving somewhat of a difficult child in its early years. But while the ground rules may be confused at times, this at least is a clear decision providing absolute guidance to the media to assist them from being chided by the PCC over an inappropriate and premature announcement.