Case Study 7: A Police Officer v The Sunday Telegraph

• Journalists arrive at the home of a woman police officer who has repsonsibility for investigating racially motivated crimes
• They pretend they are writing a book about military history and want to speak to her husband
• In fact, they are seeking to explose the fact that the policewoman's susband hs a large collection of Nazi memorabilia, including a mannequin dressed in SS uniform
• To the journalists this seems to sit uneasily with the policewoman's job
• Neither the officer nor her husband are there when the journalists call, but her mother-in-law opens the door
• The female reporter says she wishes to use the toilet and is directed upstairs by the mother-in-law while the male journalist enters the house and takes photographs which later appear in the artile, which the police officer says intrude into her privacy
• The policeofficer also complains about the journalists' misrepresentation
• The newspaper admits that it used subterfuge in researching the story, arguing that their action were in public interest as the complainant was a police officer with responsibility for investigating racially motivated crimes
• It also argues that the information could not have been obtained in any other way since the police officer's husband, the owner of the memorabilia and member of the BNP, had said he would never speak to the press again after previously being "caught out"

Have the journalists invaded the privacy of this woman and her family and, if so, was it justified?
The Cpde has rules on using subterfuge and misrepresentation. Did the journalists behave improperly in this respect or was the newspaper right in arguing they were acting in the public interest?