Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Ruling limits 'foot-in-door' reporting

Michael Leapman
Friday 16 October 1992 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A LANDMARK decision in the High Court - reached last week but so far unreported - has placed important restrictions on broadcasters' rights to invade privacy when conducting investigations, writes Michael Leapman.

Mr Justice MacPherson upheld a decision by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission that reporters on the BBC's Watchdog programme improperly infringed the privacy of David Lloyd, the managing director of a dating agency, by filming and repeatedly questioning him after he had refused a request for an interview. Although Mr Lloyd refused the interview, a BBC crew went to his house, and proceeded to film.

The case, which could put a damper on 'foot-in-the-door' interviewing techniques on television and radio, has been in the courts for nearly two years. The BBC will have to bear the costs.

After the programme was broadcast in 1990, Mr Lloyd complained to the commission, an official body charged with ruling on alleged infringements of the code of practice set out in the 1981 and 1990 Broadcasting Acts. His complaints relating to breach of privacy were upheld.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in