The Complainant was unhappy with the fact that his ex-wife agreed that their daughter who, for all 
legal purposes, is a minor, could be included in a television programme. He argued that full rights with respect to the child had, during the divorce proceedings, been granted to him and that the Respondent broadcaster did not have his permission to include visuals of the daughter in a programme. The Respondent broadcaster argued that it had no reasonable ground to believe that the mother did not have the authority to grant permission for the broadcast.
The Tribunal held as follows:
There had been an invasion of the privacy of the child.
The Tribunal was, however, convinced that the Respondent did not have any ground to doubt the mother’s capacity to grant permission.
The facts were also of such a nature that the child was not, at any stage, over-exposed. She was portrayed in a respectful manner with no particular emphasis on her incapacity. There was, accordingly, also no intention to invade her privacy. Intention is, indeed, a requirement for a finding that privacy has been invaded.
Mere foresight of a possibility that the mother did not have the capacity to consent and then, nevertheless, proceeding with the broadcast, would, however, have constituted an intentional contravention. This was, however, not the case in the present matter.
The Complaint was not upheld.