Manchester Withington MP John Leech has expressed outrage at the leaking of what he believed to be a private letter to a university students’ union women’s officer passing on – and apparently endorsing – the view of one of his constituents that noisy students compromised their own and others’ safety.
Controversially the constituent set these concerns in the context of the rape of a student; residents had alleged become so used to late night shouts and screams they would not have responded to someone in genuine distress, they alleged.
Leech, a preacher’s son with a reputation for promoting puritan values, appeared to not just endorse this view but to request that the student body accept a degree of responsibility for the crime: ‘I appreciate that this is a small minority of students that are responsible for this noise and… I am sure they would not want to be responsible for compromising the safety of their fellow students and residents.’
Challenged by the South Manchester Reporter and I, Leech has refused to distance himself from this remark and has instead, by way of vague references to data protection legislation, claimed that the letter was private.
This is the kind of crisis public relations professionals come up against all the time. It is not uncommon for a senior person, working under pressure perhaps, to fire off an ill thought out email that drops everyone in it. Leech has almost certainly gone with his gut instinct and having seen how his views have been received regrets the exposure.
I’m not a lawyer and so can only make general observations, but it does appear that in situations like these the piracy argument is unlikely to get us anywhere.
A right to privacy is enshrined in the Human Rights Act, but it is hard to see how this matter could be regarded as an intrusion into John Leech’s private or family life.
Throughout the affair, the South Manchester Reporter has respected the constituent’s right to anonymity and so it’s hard to see how their rights might have been breeched.
It’s worth knowing that journalists are largely exempt from the Data Protection Act, so that route is almost certainly out. The MP might instead attempt to demonstrate a breech of confidence, but this area of law is complex and it would be necessary to demonstrate, amongst other things, that an obligation of confidence had been established. That seems unlikely to have been the case.
And then there’s the public interest defence to think about… what a minefield, nothing seems to point in the MP’s favour!
The general rule for anyone facing the kind of scrutiny MPs are rightly subject to, is never to write or say anything you’re not prepared to stand by in public… and given that John Leech MP stands by his letter it’s hard to see the source of his outrage.