03162-25 Humphreys v The Sun

Summary of Complaint

1. Daniel Humphreys complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that a journalist acting on behalf of The Sun breached Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice on 22 July 2025.

2. The complainant was the defendant in an ongoing criminal case, and said the conduct of a reporter on the day of his trial had breached Clause 3. He said that the reporter chased him in an aggressive attempt to take his photograph. Though he did not speak to the reporter, and no words were exchanged during the incident, he said he clearly did not wish to be photographed, and that this was communicated through his body language: he had shielded himself with an umbrella, did not engage, and moved away.

3. The complainant said that, after the interaction described above, his partner had challenged the reporter and told him that the complainant did not want his photograph taken, and that she considered “chasing” her partner to be harassment. He also said that – when she had asked the reporter his name - he had given only a single name, and did not give his surname. He added that, when the journalist had been asked who he worked for, he had not responded and had walked away.

4. During IPSO’s investigation, the complainant said he had seen the same reporter on 3 October during his sentencing hearing. He said that, when asked, the reporter gave a different name, and confirmed he worked for The Sun and another news agency.

5. The publication accepted that the reporter had been acting on its behalf when attending the complainant’s sentencing hearing in October, and that he had ultimately provided an article which was based on material obtained during the sentencing hearing and the July 2025 hearing. However, it said that he was not acting on behalf of The Sun at the time he attended the first hearing on 22 July. It said therefore, that any interaction that occurred between him and the complainant on this date was not relevant to it.

6. Notwithstanding this, it set out the reporter’s recollection of the events of 22 July. It said the reporter attempted to take the complainant’s photograph outside court, and was standing at a distance when the defendant ran out of the court wearing a face covering and holding an umbrella. The reporter then attempted to take a picture of the complainant while ensuring he was still at a distance, and did not chase or pursue him.

7. The publication said when the complainant’s partner accosted the reporter for his details, he had no idea who she was or why she wanted them and he did not feel comfortable giving personal information to someone he had no cause to believe was connected with his work. It also said the reporter denied having been dishonest with the complainant, and noted that – when the complainant’s partner had approached him on 3 October, when he was working on behalf of The Sun - the journalist had confirmed who he was working for at the time.

8. The complainant said that the publication had confirmed the October article relied on material obtained by the reporter at the hearing on 22 July It said the publication had therefore benefited from the newsgathering on this day and, this meant his behaviour on that date was relevant to the newspaper.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Findings of the Committee

9. While the journalist had not been commissioned to act on behalf of the publication on 22 July 2025, material obtained by the journalist on this date had been used for the benefit of The Sun in the preparation and publication of a later article. The Committee noted that the terms of Clause 3 (iii) make clear that editors must ensure that principles of Clause 3 are observed by those working for them and must take care not to use material which is not compliant with the terms of the Clause. Given this, while the publication had not commissioned the journalist to act on its behalf in July ,the complaint about the journalist’s conduct on this date engaged the terms of Clause 3.

10. The Committee first considered the obligation under Clause 3 for journalists to, if requested, identify themselves and whom they represent. The Committee noted that, during the interaction on 22 July, the complainant’s partner asked for the journalist’s name. While the complainant’s position was that the journalist had provided an incorrect first name, the Committee noted that – according to the complainant - the journalist had identified themselves with a name which was similar to the journalist’s surname.

11. The Committee noted the difficulty of adjudicating on an interaction where it was dependent on two conflicting recollections of the same interaction, and without the benefit of an audio recording. However, the Committee did not consider that there was enough evidence before it to indicate the journalist had been intentionally deceptive or stated the wrong name. Rather, it appeared that there had been a misunderstanding, given the name the complainant had heard was similar to the journalist’s surname.

12. The Committee also did not consider that failing to identify which publication the journalist was acting on behalf of in July 2025 was a breach of the Code: the journalist was not acting on behalf of The Sun at the time of the interaction.

13. The Committee also noted that the journalist had - on 3 October 2025 - given the complainant his name and said who he was acting on behalf of on that date. Given these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the journalist had not refused to identify himself when asked, and that there was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.

14. The Committee next considered the complainant’s complaint that the reporter had chased him aggressively and attempted to take his photograph. It noted that newspapers are generally entitled to photograph individuals in public areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, provided no request to desist from doing so has been made. The reporter was therefore entitled to photograph the complainant, and to take steps to ensure that the photograph of the complainant was clear and showed his likeness. The Committee did not consider, therefore, that attempting to photograph the complainant as he left court, or moving to a another position in order to get a clearer photograph constituted harassment.

15. While the Committee acknowledged that the complainant had used his umbrella to block his face, it noted that he has at no time asked the journalist to desist, and the journalist had only been approached by the complainant’s partner after the complainant had left the vicinity of the court, by the complainant’s own account. In such circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 3.

Conclusions

16. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 31/07/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/02/2026