IPSO adjudication upheld against MailOnline に引き続いて （民事の）告訴 from Lily James
Lily James complained to the 独立した・無所属 圧力（をかける） 基準s Organisation that Mail Online 違反d 条項 2 (Privacy) and 条項 3 (いやがらせ) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a 一連の 51 articles, published between 12 October 2020 and 2 February 2021.
The 原告，告訴人 said that the 出版（物） had 悩ますd her by continuing to approach her after she had made it aware of her 関心s on several occasions about what she considered to be 執拗な and intrusive approaches from the 圧力（をかける） and her request that these approaches should 中止する.
The 原告，告訴人 also said that the 出版（物） had 違反d her privacy by taking and publishing a 始める，決める of photographs showing her eating dinner in a restaurant with two 同僚s. She said she had been sitting に向かって the 支援する of the restaurant and was not readily 明白な to passers-by; therefore, she said, she had a reasonable 期待 of privacy, which was not overridden by any public 利益／興味.
IPSO 設立する that Mail Online had 違反d 条項 3 of the Editors’ Code of Practice. An IPSO privacy notice, 循環させるd on 13 October 2020, made a 明確な／細部 request for members of the 圧力（をかける） to leave the area around the 原告，告訴人’s home and 差し控える from 試みる／企てるing to 接触する and photograph her. After this request had been made, a public 利益／興味 was 要求するd under the 条件 of 条項 3 to 正当化する 固執するing in 試みる／企てるs to 接触する and photograph the 原告，告訴人. The 出版（物） had then （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限d a 新聞記者／雑誌記者 to look for the 原告，告訴人 in the 周辺 of her home. The 決定／判定勝ち（する） to direct a 新聞記者／雑誌記者 to …に出席する the area around the 原告，告訴人’s house to “watch” for her in the 即座の 影響 of the 循環／発行部数 of the notice broke the 条件 of the request to desist from 試みる／企てるing to 接触する and approach the 原告，告訴人 in the 周辺 of her home, and the request for members of the 圧力（をかける） to disp erse from the area around her home. There was, therefore, a 違反 of 条項 3 in relation to the repeated approaches to the area of the 原告，告訴人’s home. A separate （民事の）告訴 under 条項 3 about the 容積／容量 of the ニュース報道 relating to the 原告，告訴人 was not upheld.
IPSO also 設立する that the 出版（物） had 違反d 条項 2 of the Editors’ Code, by publishing a 始める，決める of photographs showing the 原告，告訴人 seated and eating in the 支援する of a restaurant. 条項 2 of the Editors’ Code makes （疑いを）晴らす that it is 容認できない to photograph individuals in public places where there is a reasonable 期待 of privacy without their 同意, and the 委員会 結論するd that the 原告，告訴人 did have a reasonable 期待 of privacy at the time that the photographs were taken, with a long-レンズ camera. The 原告，告訴人 had taken （疑いを）晴らす steps to seat herself away from public 見解（をとる）, and the photographs had been 得るd surreptitiously from outside the restaurant using professional 器具／備品.
Mail Online had said that there was a public 利益／興味 in publishing the photographs, which outweighed any reasonable 期待 of privacy which the 原告，告訴人 might have had ? because in its 見解（をとる） they appeared to show the 原告，告訴人 engaged in an activity which contravened the Covid-19 指導／手引 which was in place at the time. However, the 原告，告訴人 had told Mail Online 事前の to 出版（物） that the photographs showed her engaged in a 商売／仕事 会合 ? which was 許すd, によれば 指導／手引 at the time, which Mail Online was not in a position to 論争. It did not appear to have given その上の consideration as to whether there was a public 利益／興味 in the photographs’ 出版（物）, having been made aware of this （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）. There was, therefore, a 違反 of 条項 2.
IPSO upheld the （民事の）告訴s under 条項 2 (Privacy) and 条項 3 (いやがらせ) and 要求するd 出版（物） of this adjudication as a 治療（薬）.
To 報告（する）／憶測 an inaccuracy, please email 是正s@mailonline.co.uk. To make a formal （民事の）告訴 under IPSO 支配するs please go to www.mailonline.co.uk/readerseditor?where you will find an 平易な-to-use （民事の）告訴s form. You can also 令状 to Readers' Editor, MailOnline, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street,
W8 5TT or 接触する IPSO 直接／まっすぐに at ipso.co.uk
