Decision of the Complaints Committee — 00233-20 Sharp v
birminghammail.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Jill Sharp complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that birminghammail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Depraved stalker flaunts early prison release with brazen
champagne celebration snaps” published on 16 October 2019.
2. The article was published after a woman had been released
from prison after she had been convicted of stalking her former friend and her
husband. It reported that she had caused controversy by posting photographs of
herself drinking champagne and celebrating after her release. The husband of
the former friend was quoted in the article as saying that the woman was a
laughing stock at Ibrox stadium; that “this obsession she has with champagne is
sad but we won’t be intimidated by her”; that she was a “fantasist and a
stalker”, and that “details emerged in court” about her behaviour. The article
also included critical comments made on Twitter about the woman, including that
she was not welcome in supporters’ pubs.
3. The article also reported that “In February 2017, it was
reported that [ the woman] had stalked a man who was a complete stranger to
her. She created a fake second life using photos [name] and his fiancée [name]
had posted on social media. [The woman] copied their movements so she could be
pictured in places they had visited, then posted loved-up snaps online. She set up a fake Twitter page for her
‘boyfriend’ and sent romantic messages between them, as well as explicit details
of an imaginary sex life.”
4. The article also included several photographs of the
woman, including a photograph of her drinking champagne in her pyjamas after
having been released from prison, two different photographs of the woman
drinking champagne in a hot tub, a photograph of the woman and a man which the
newspaper said the woman had fabricated to make it appear as if they were in a
relationship, and a copy of the original news article which had reported on the
allegedly faked relationship. The photographs which showed the woman drinking
champagne prominently displayed the bottles.
5. The complainant was the woman who had been convicted of
stalking her former friend and her husband, and who had been previously accused
of fabricating a relationship. She said that the article contained a number of
inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1. She said that she was not being “brazen” as
reported in the headline when she posted pictures of herself on social media.
She said that it was not the case that she was a laughing stock at Ibrox
stadium. She said that she did not have an obsession with champagne or that she
was trying to intimidate anyone, nor that she was a fantasist or a stalker. She
also said that it was not the case that “details emerged in court” about her
behaviour – she said that very little was said in court about her behaviour.
6. The complainant said that the article was also inaccurate
to report that she had fabricated a relationship. She said that she had not
been convicted of any offence in relation to this allegation, and had always
maintained that she was the victim of a hoax. She said that she had always
strongly denied this allegation, which the article did not make clear. She said
that her denial was in the public domain at the time of publication, via its inclusion
in previous articles.
7. The complainant also said that the article intruded into
her privacy in breach of Clause 2 by using photographs of her without her
permission. However, she did accept that all the photographs had either
appeared on publicly-accessible social media profiles at the time of
publication, or had already been published in articles from 2017.
8. Finally, the complainant said that the publication of the
article represented a continuation of persistent coverage by the newspaper,
which she said was unjustified and excessive. Therefore, she said that the
publication of the article constituted a breach of Clause 3.
9. Aside from the issue relating to the allegedly faked
relationship, the newspaper did not accept that the article contained any
significant inaccuracies requiring correction. With regards to the allegedly
faked relationship, it said that at the time that the article was published,
the publication was confident that the article was accurate. It said that the
complainant was originally charged with offences relating to this allegation,
although they were not pursued by the Crown. In light of this development, the
newspaper accepted that the article should be amended to reflect this. As such,
on receipt of the complaint it amended the article to make clear that the
points relating the allegedly faked relationship were claims, and added this
wording as a footnote:
“This article has been amended to make clear that the
information relating to [name] are claims.”
In the newspaper’s first response to IPSO’s investigation,
it also offered to add this wording to the footnote:
“Prior to the trial of the defendant with charges of
harassment relating to [former friend and former friend’s husband], we are
happy to make clear that the Crown did not pursue the charges in relation to
[name].”
A day after this offer, it then revised this wording to
state:
“This article has been amended to make clear that the
information relating to [name] are claims. Prior to the trial of the defendant
with charges of harassment relating to [former friend and former friend’s
husband], we are happy to make clear that the Crown did not pursue the charges
in relation to [name] and that Jill Sharp disputes these claims.”
10. The newspaper did not accept that the complainant had a
reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the photographs published in
the article. It said that the images were freely available on
publicly-accessible social media accounts at the time of publication. In relation
to Clause 3, it said that the frequency at which articles were published about
a subject did not engage the terms of Clause 3.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
12. Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
13. 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
14. In relation to the allegedly fabricated relationship,
this was reported as fact and the article did not report that the complainant
denied the allegation. Presenting this allegation as fact, despite the
existence of the complainant’s denial which was in the public domain at the
time of publication, constituted a failure to distinguish between comment,
conjecture and fact, and there was a breach of Clause 1(iv). Where the article
was significantly misleading as to the status of these serious allegations, a
clarification putting on the record that these claims were allegations disputed
by the complainant was required under Clause 1(ii).
15. On receipt of the complaint, the newspaper had amended
the article to make clear that the points relating to the allegedly faked
relationship were claims, rather than points of fact. It also added a footnote
to the articles to record that this change had been made. In the first response
to IPSO’s investigation, it offered to add to the footnote that the charges
relating to this allegation were not pursued by the Crown – a day after this response,
it added that the complainant disputed the claims. This offer was sufficiently
prompt and as a footnote to the online article, was sufficiently prominent. The
wording of the footnote made clear the complainant’s position and the status of
the claims, as required under Clause 1(ii). For these reasons, there was no
breach of Clause 1(ii).
16. Where the complainant had been criticised for posting
photographs on social media showing her drinking champagne after her release
from prison, there was a basis to describe her as being “brazen” and this
description was not significantly misleading as to the facts of her behaviour
such as to require correction. The rest of the alleged inaccuracies were all
attributed to the husband of her former friend via quotation marks. There was
no failure to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact in reporting his
comments. With regards to the claim that she was a “laughing stock” at Ibrox,
although the complainant disputed this, she did not provide any basis to suggest
that she had not been criticised or caused controversy following her conviction
or release from prison. The Committee also considered that the complainant was
not in a position to dispute this claim – she could not claim to have knowledge
of all members of the Ibrox community or club fanbase, or their views of her
behaviour. Furthermore, the article reported comments which were critical of
the complainant and said that she was not welcome at supporters’ pubs – the
complainant did not dispute that these comments had been accurately reported.
For this reason, the Committee did not find that this claim raised any
significant inaccuracies requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
17. Although the complainant disputed she had an “obsession
with champagne”, the basis for this was set out in the article – she had
celebrated her release from prison by posting pictures on social media of her
drinking champagne. Furthermore, as reported in the article, the complainant
had previously posted photographs of her drinking champagne, each with the
champagne a focus of the photograph. The Committee did not find that this
comment – clearly presented as the former friend’s husband’s own
characterisation – represented a significant inaccuracy requiring correction.
The former friend was entitled to his view that the complainant had been trying
to intimidate him and his wife – this claim did not distort the facts of the
complainant’s behaviour, which had been accurately reported. Reporting this
claim did not give rise to any significant inaccuracy requiring correction.
Where the complainant had been convicted of stalking offences and was found to
have created fake online profiles in order to do this, it was not significantly
misleading to describe her as a “fantasist and a stalker”, and where her case
had been heard in court, it was not inaccurate to report that “details emerged
in court” about her behaviour. For all of these reasons, these points did not
raise any breach of Clause 1 in the second article.
18. With regards to the photographs, the complainant
accepted that they were publicly accessible on social media at the time of
publication or had been published in previous articles. For these reasons, the
complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over these
photographs and their publication did not represent an intrusion into her
privacy. There was no breach of Clause 2.
19. The terms of Clause 3 are generally interpreted to apply
to the conduct of journalists during the newsgathering process. The concern
that the newspaper had printed an article which was unnecessary did not engage
the terms of Clause 3.
Conclusions
20. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial Action Required
21. The action which the newspaper had offered was
sufficiently prompt and prominent, and made clear the status of the claims.
This was sufficient to comply with the terms of Clause 1(ii), and should now be
printed.
Date complaints received: 11/01/2020
Date complaints concluded by IPSO: 21/01/2021