00047-25 Morris v shropshirestar.com

Summary of Complaint

1. Sophie Morris complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that shropshirestar.com breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Police issue update after air ambulances and emergency services are scrambled to Oswestry”, published on 16 November 2024.

2. The article originally appeared beneath a different headline, which neither party were able to confirm to IPSO. It included several photographs of emergency service vehicles attending what appeared to be a residential street. The original version of the article included a photograph which showed two uniformed police officers and a woman in a dark coat, standing outside of the complainant’s house – the photograph was, seemingly, taken from the driveway. The front of the house, including its open front door, was visible in the photograph.

3. At the time that the photograph of the complainant’s house appeared in the article, the article also reported her street address. It reported that both police cars and an ambulance were present.

4. The original version of the article, including the photograph, was removed about an hour after publication. The amended version of the article, later supplied to IPSO, featured the headline referenced above, and the sub-headline: “Police have confirmed that an incident in Oswestry this morning was a 'medical emergency involving a baby'. It went on to report:

“A major response from the emergency services was launched at around 10.40am on Saturday, November 16 with air ambulances, land ambulances and many police vehicles in [a named street].

A spokesperson for West Mercia Police said: ‘We were called to an address on [the named street] in Oswestry at around 10.40am today (Saturday 16 November) to reports of a medical emergency involving a baby.’”

5. The updated version of the article did not include the photograph of the complainant’s house. The article appeared online only.

6. A link to the article was also published on the publication’s Facebook.

7. The complainant said that the taking, and publication, of the photograph of her house breached Clause 2 and Clause 4. She said that emergency services had been responding to a medical emergency, during which her infant son had died. She said that, while she understood the need to initially report the story, photographing her house then publishing the photograph had added to her distress at the time.

8. The complainant stated that some of her family members had learnt that her son was involved in an incident due to the photograph of her house. She said that the area she lived in was small, and the picture of her home and reference to a baby made her easy to identify. She was, however, unable to confirm which family members she believed had found out from the newspaper, as she had forgotten a lot of the details of the day – at the end of IPSO’s investigation, she confirmed the name of a friend who had found out about the incident by reading the article.

9. Additionally, the complainant later said the photograph of her house was only removed because her friends and family asked the newspaper to do so.

10. On the same day IPSO made the publication aware of the complaint, the publication contacted the complainant. The publication removed the updated article from its website entirely, offered the complainant an apology for any distress caused, and offered to publish an apology, or a follow-up story from the complainant’s perspective. During IPSO’s investigation into the complaint, the publication said it regretted any distress caused by the publication of the photograph. It did not, however, accept a breach of the Editors’ Code.

11. The publication set out, firstly, the circumstances that led to its presence at the property. It said it had sent a reporter to the scene after being alerted by multiple members of the public to a large police presence at the complainant’s home. It said, due to the number of police officers and police vehicles outside the house, it resembled a crime scene, but the exact facts of the matter were not known to it at the time the photograph was taken, or the time the article was published. It said sending reporters and photographers to an evolving incident with police in attendance is a matter of routine, as such incidents are inherently in the public interest.

12. The publication said its reporters tried to speak to police at the scene to ascertain the nature of the situation, and its office-based reporters had attempted to speak to the police press office. The publication commented that neighbours at the property told the “reporter that they believed a child was involved but could not provide any other information”.

13. The newspaper said that, as soon as it became aware that there was no foul play involved and that the incident was a medical emergency, it immediately removed the photograph of the complainant’s house and amended the article to clarify what had happened and refer to a “medical emergency”. It was unable to provide IPSO with the original version of the article as it had moved to a different content publishing system since its publication. However, it said the original article “would have reflected the fact there was a police presence at the address, with no implication as to why”. It also said that the original copy was a “factual report reflecting that there was a big police presence at a house and that the air ambulance had been called”. It also acknowledged the importance of retaining copies of online articles in future.

14. The publication later added that it was unsure what prompted the removal of the original version of the article, and the photograph of the complainant’s home, but that it had no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s contention that this was done in response to concerns raised by her friends and family.

15. Notwithstanding this, the publication commented that all versions of the article were factually, fairly and sensitively reported, and outlined only the facts of the incident as the publication knew them to be true at the time of reporting. The publication also stated that the majority of the photographs within the article were taken from a distance, in a public place, and showed a “general view” of the scene – although it accepted that one showed the complainant’s house.

16. In response, the complainant said that she did not expect to have cameras and reporters present at her home, nor an article published about what had happened – she maintained that the reporter had acted improperly by standing in her driveway to take the photograph of her home.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Findings of the Committee

17. The Committee expressed its sincere condolences for the complainant’s loss.

18. The Committee began with Clause 4, and first, the decision to send reporters to the incident.

19. The publication was entitled to attend the street, and to report on the presence of a large number of emergency services vehicles attending an incident. This was potentially a significant news story to the local community. The publication was not aware of the nature of the incident, but this in itself was a legitimate reason to send a reporter to the scene: to determine what had happened and, if appropriate, report on it. Sending a reporter to attend the scene did not breach the Code. However, it had a responsibility to ensure that its reporting was carried out with appropriate sensitivity towards those most directly concerned - the complainant and her immediate family.

20. The published photograph made clear that the complainant’s home was involved in a significant emergency, because it showed uniformed police officers in front of her open door, alongside her street-level address (in the text of the article). The photograph clearly made the complainant identifiable within her community in connection with a highly distressing event. Indeed, the Committee noted, it appeared friends of the complainant had found out about the incident via the article.

21. The Committee took into account the publication’s position that the photograph had been taken, and published, before it had been established that the incident was a medical emergency involving a baby – and that the photograph had not appeared alongside any reference to an emergency involving a baby. It also appreciated that the publication had taken prompt action to remove the photograph.

22. However, the Committee considered that publication of the photograph at a time when the publication was unaware of the true nature of the incident – represented a lack of sensitivity in its reporting. Where the nature of the incident had not been established, it was reasonably foreseeable that the incident could have involved a death, or other extremely serious matter. This was especially the case where, as the publication acknowledged, neighbours at the scene had told its reporter that they believed the matter involved a child. In this context, the publication of a photograph clearly identifying the complainant’s house as the scene of an emergency did not represent sensitive reporting and had intruded into the grief and shock of the complainant. There was a breach of Clause 4.

23. The Committee next turned to Clause 2. As above, the Committee recognised that the publication was entitled to report on the presence of a large number of emergency services vehicles on the complainant’s street.

24. However, the photograph, which appeared to have been taken from the complainant’s driveway, showed the front of her house. This photograph, in combination with the name of the street, effectively disclosed that the complainant or her family were involved in a significant emergency, which involved the presence of police officers and ambulance crews attending her home - a fact over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. By publishing the photograph of the complainant’s home before the nature of the incident had been established – which was later known to be a medical emergency involving her infant son - the Committee considered the publication had failed to respect the complainant’s private and family life. This was a breach of Clause 2.

25. Finally, the Committee expressed concerns at the publication’s failure to keep a record of all versions of the article, which meant it was unable to provide IPSO with the original version and could not confirm the original headline. It appreciated that this was due to it having moved to a different content publishing system. The Committee welcomed the editor’s acknowledgment of the need to retain versions of articles amended in response to complaints.

Conclusions

26. The complaint was upheld under Clause 2 and Clause 4.

Remedial action required

27. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

28. As the article breached Clause 2 and Clause 4, and the breach could not be remedied by way of a correction, the remedial action required was an adjudication.

29. As the article appeared only online, the adjudication should be published online, with a link to this adjudication (including the headline) being published on the top third of the publication’s homepage for 24 hours; it should then be archived in the usual way. A link to the adjudication should also be published on Facebook, given a link to the article appeared on the website.

30. The headline to the adjudication should make clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint, reference the title of the publication and refer to the complaint’s subject matter. The headline must be agreed with IPSO in advance.

31. The terms of the adjudication are as follows:

Sophie Morris complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that shropshirestar.com breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Police issue update after air ambulances and emergency services are scrambled to Oswestry”, published on 16 November 2024.

The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required shropshirestar.com to publish this adjudication to remedy the breach of the Code

The original version of the article included a photograph which showed two uniformed police officers and a woman in a dark coat, standing outside of the complainant’s house – the photograph was, seemingly, taken from the driveway. The front of the house, including its open front door, was visible in the photograph.

At the time the photograph of the complainant’s house appeared in the article, the article also reported her street address. It reported both police cars and an ambulance were present.

The original version of the article, including the photograph, was removed about an hour after publication.

A link to the article was also published on the publication’s Facebook.

The complainant said that the taking, and publication, of the photograph of her house breached Clause 2 and Clause 4. She said that emergency services had been responding to a medical emergency, during which her infant son had died.

The publication was entitled to attend the street, and to report on the presence of a large number of emergency services vehicles attending an incident. This was potentially a significant news story to the local community. The publication was not aware of the nature of the incident, but this in itself was a legitimate reason to send a reporter to the scene: to determine what had happened and, if appropriate, report on it. Sending a reporter to attend the scene did not breach the Code. However, it had a responsibility to ensure that its reporting was carried out with appropriate sensitivity towards those most directly concerned - the complainant and her immediate family.

The published photograph made clear that the complainant’s home was involved in a significant emergency, because it showed uniformed police officers in front of her open door, alongside her street-level address (in the text of the article). The photograph clearly made the complainant identifiable within her community in connection with a highly distressing event.

IPSO took into account the publication’s position that the photograph had been taken, and published, before it had been established that the incident was a medical emergency involving a baby – and that the photograph had not appeared alongside any reference to an emergency involving a baby. IPSO also appreciated that the publication promptly removed the photograph.

However, IPSO considered that publication of the photograph at a time when the publication was unaware of the true nature of the incident – represented a lack of sensitivity in its reporting. Where the nature of the incident had not been established, it was reasonably foreseeable that the incident could have involved a death, or other extremely serious matter. This was especially the case where, as the publication acknowledged, neighbours at the scene had told its reporter that they believed the matter involved a child. In this context, the publication of a photograph clearly identifying the complainant’s house as the scene of an emergency did not represent sensitive reporting and had intruded into the grief and shock of the complainant. There was a breach of Clause 4.

In regard to Clause 2, IPSO again recognised that the publication was entitled to report on the presence of a large number of emergency services vehicles on the complainant’s street.

However, the photograph, which appeared to have been taken from the complainant’s driveway, showed the front of her house. This photograph, in combination with the name of the street, effectively disclosed that the complainant or her family were involved in a significant emergency, which involved the presence of police officers and ambulance crews attending her home - a fact over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. By publishing the photograph of the complainant’s home before the nature of the incident had been established – which was later known to be a medical emergency involving her infant son - IPSO considered the publication had failed to respect the complainant’s private and family life. This was a breach of Clause 2.

Date complaint received: 06/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/07/2025