CS 3 - a man vs Sunday Times

• clause 6 is broken as he 14 year old was disturbed during his school education and he shouldnt have been interviewed involving another childs welfare (potentially). similarly if the claim about the money is true and information was found the minor could not have been paid for material about childrens welfare. even though no stories were published  - the method of gaining material are breeching the code
• possible clause 9 would come into effect as if the suspect was a child - looking for a photo of them may well not considering his vulnerable position as a witness of a crime - although arguably the public right to know could have overruled this
• whilst there is quite alot of public interest and no information about the minor or photo of the accused was published - the claimed methods of gaining the information they wanted did breech the code - so at least a warning or a private apology should be issued

CS 8 - Paul McCartney vs Hello!

• arguable clasue 3 of privacy has been breeched as whilst it is a well known celebrity it an relativly public place - as it is a personal moment of their private life and not an overwhelmingly public right to know - the privacy clause was probably breeched especially as his less public family and cildren were also included in the picture - so their private life must be considered
• clause 5 is also relavant as its intrusion into grief or shock it should be handled carefully - which i think the article did but the intrusive picture maybe wasnt

CS 7 - a police officer vs the Sunday Telegraph

• clause of 3 privacy states that everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private life - which would therefore have meant a breech of the code as they took picture within a private place withoout permisson
• whilst their is some right to know with regard to the public image of the police woman - her husband is not in the public eye. therefore i think his right to privacy is not overwhelmed by the right to know
• clause 10 about clandesine and subterfuge has been broken as the press misrepresented themselves to get into private home. whilst they claim there has been some attempt to gain info by other means and there is to some extent a public right to know - i still think the press did break the code as the public right to know did not overrule this

CS 6 - a woman vs eastbourne gazette

• potential harassment clause 4 - paticularly if the family had requested that the journalist left them alone as it was repeated attempts to gain information
• clause 8 hospital code has definetely been breeched as he did not identify himself and didnt grant permisson. this was especially inapproproate as the man was not in a state of giving information.
• whilst the claims of harassment could be seen as good journalism, it was probably a bit much to soon and wouldnt have resulted in any information being given.
• the public right to knowwould not outweight this as it is a private matter of an individuals health  - it would be more suitable to gain info at a later date

CS 5 - a woman vs the Sun

• the main clause here is clause 5 intrusion into grief or shock where it specifically states that in cases of suicide details about how it happened should be avoided. the photos clearly demonstrated the method of suicide so broke the code.
• similarly the fact that it was so soon after her death (before it had been publicly annonced) would indicate that it wasnt dealt with with much sensitivity
• the public could have a right to know about the event as it is shocking but they could have waited until the death had been formerly announced and did not have to include the contraversial picture of her falling to her death becuase of taste and decency 

CS 4 - a woman vs independent

• definete intrusion into privacy as it was her private life and the right know did not over power it
• also issue of now intrusion into grief or shock and inaccracy which is relevant after the miscarriadge
• defamation of character slightly as it implies unproffesional attitude as she has wuit previous shows
• i think that a private and public apology is appropriate as the paper did break the code on a few counts

CS 2 - a man vs Zoo mag

• children clause 6 relavant
• defamation of character (text) law rather than code
• even though she was in public place she was underage and so had used photgraph without consent. context of article could have given her grief and thus impacted on her welfare, which would have broken the code
• not massive public right to know as is a general issue rather than specific to the two individuals 
• whilst father didnt really protec this daughter or prevent her from making the gestures he probably didnt realsie it was going to be photographed and reported. however as they were in a public place they should maybe have been more concerned and responsible for there behaviour 

C.S. 1 - a man vs Northwich Guardian

• clause 6 children relevant as people in video under 16
• clause 3 for privacy as it was private act?
• as the material was in the public domain already - privacy is not an issue
• material was posted by the children in the clip so the childrens clause act isnt relavant
• public right to know as obvious footage of a crime being commited
• there own responsivility of putting themselves in public eye by uploading video to youtube