Strasbourg rules covert filming made in public interest is justified

In a judgment with far-reaching implications for the use of concealed cameras, the court ruled that four Swiss journalists had the right to use covert cameras to obtain a story.

The four journalists secretly filmed an insurance broker who was speaking to a journalist posing as a client for a television documentary on the sale of life insurance.

The four were convicted in Switzerland in 2007 of intrusion into the man’s privacy and were ordered to pay fines.

But the Strasbourg court said the convictions were in violation of the journalists’ right to freedom of expression.

In February 2003, Monika Balmer, editor of Kassensturz – a television programme dealing with consumer rights – prepared a documentary of life insurance packages.

She agreed with the editor responsible for the programme, Hansjorg Utz as well as editor-in-chief Ulrich Maldimann, to record the interviews between brokers and customers in order to expose any malpractice.

Posing as a customer, journalist Fiona Strebel, met a broker with hidden cameras in the room.

The footage was later broadcast with the identity of the broker hidden.

Judges in the ECtHR said they had acted ethically by limiting their use of the camera and that they acted in good faith. They added the facts reported were never challenged.

The fact that the broker’s face and voice had been hidden was treated as the “decisive factor” and it was held the intrusion into the man’s private life was insufficiently serious to displace the public’s interest in knowing about malpractice in the insurance brokerage industry.

But since the journalists did not submit a financial claim they were not compensated.

Judge Lemmens gave a dissenting opinion (available only in French).

The judgment comes amid controversy at Westminster with Sir Malcolm Rifkind being forced to stand down from his chairmanship of the House of Commons’ intelligence and security committee and to resign as an MP after a “cash for access” sting involving him and fellow former foreign secretary Jack Straw.

Both men have referred themselves to parliament’s standards watchdog and both claim they have not breached any parliamentary rules.