Decision of the Complaints Committee 00275-15 Ivleva v Daily Express
1. Marina Ivleva complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Express had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply), Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Harassment),
Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) and Clause 12 (Discrimination)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Penniless trucker in
battle over internet bride’s £300k fortune”, published on 2 December 2014.
2. The complainant had grown up in the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea, had married a British man and was resident in the UK. Her
husband had filed for divorce in 2013 and had been informed that she had already
divorced him in Ukraine. The article was primarily a report of court
proceedings, stating that the British courts had refused to recognise the
Ukrainian decision, and that the complainant’s appeal of this judgment had been
unsuccessful, leaving the complainant’s husband free to file for divorce in the
UK. The article had also included comments made by the complainant’s husband to
a journalist following the court case. He had said that she had considerable
financial resources, while he was living in poverty.
3. The complainant said that the article had inaccurately
reported the date of the hearing reported, which had taken place on 24
November, and had fabricated her employment details; she was a programme
administrator and not a senior administrator as reported. She also said that
she did not possess assets of £300,000 as reported. She considered that the
newspaper should have contacted her for comment prior to publication, and
considered the failure to do so to be a breach of Clause 2. The complainant
believed that the article had intruded into her privacy and said that one of
the newspaper’s reporters in Ukraine had harassed her friends and family. She
said that a photographer had stolen a photograph of her and published it
without her consent. Furthermore, she
said that the article was biased and discriminatory towards her, and that it
should not have made reference to her Ukrainian background.
4. The newspaper said that the article had been obtained
from an agency and was a fair and accurate report of court proceedings. The
copy had been obtained the day before publication, hence the article stating
that the hearing had taken place “yesterday”. It accepted that the estimate of
the complainant’s wealth, and her employment, had not been heard as part of
proceedings, but were based on comments made by her husband to a reporter
outside the court. It noted that these claims could have been more clearly
distinguished as the view of the complainant’s husband, and offered to publish
the following correction in its corrections column on its letters page:
Marina Ivleva
In our article “Penniless trucker in battle over internet
bride’s £300k fortune” published on 2 December 2014 we said that Ms Ivleva had
amassed assets of £300,000 during her 12 year marriage to John Yates, whilst
working as a senior administrator for a university. In fact, this figure is her
husband’s estimate of her wealth. Ms Ivleva denies that she has any assets and
has asked us to make it clear that she does not have a senior role or a highly
paid job.
5. The complainant did not accept the terms of the
correction. She said that the entire article was fabricated, and any wording should
reflect this.
6. The newspaper did not accept that the article had
intruded into the complainant’s privacy; it was based on an appeal held in open
court. The photograph used in the article had been supplied by the agency, who
maintained that it was obtained lawfully. The reporter who the complainant said
was guilty of harassment had never been employed by the newspaper in any
capacity, and it could not be held responsible for her conduct. The publication
did not have a Moscow office. The terms of Clause 12 did not prohibit
references to an individual’s nationality.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be
given when reasonably called for.
Clause 3 (Privacy)
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into
any individual’s private life without consent.
Clause 4 (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 their
property when asked to leave and must not follow them.
Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material
acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by
intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the
unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing
digitally-held private information without consent.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative
reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation
or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual’s race, colour, religion,
sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided
unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
8. The Press is free to publish individual comment and
conjecture. As such, the newspaper was entitled to publish the complainant’s
husband’s comment on her wealth. The Committee expressed some concern that the
headline and first paragraph had not made clear that the value of the
complainant’s assets was based on comments made by her husband outside court.
However, given that the article had later made clear that this was his
estimate, it did not on balance establish a breach of Clause 1. The Committee
welcomed the newspaper’s offer of a correction on this point, but in the
circumstances, there was no requirement to publish this wording.
9. The discrepancy between the complainant’s reported job
title of senior administrator and her actual role of programme administrator
did not represent a significant inaccuracy requiring correction. Nor did the
article’s assertion that the hearing had taken place “yesterday”, rather than
the week before, materially affect the facts of the case. There was no breach
of Clause 1 on these points.
10. The terms of Clause 2 do not require publications to
ask the subjects of stories for comment prior to publication, but provide the
opportunity to respond to published inaccuracies. The complainant had expressed
concern that the article was “fabricated” but had not asked for an opportunity
to reply, and had declined the newspaper’s offer to publish a correction. There
was no breach of Clause 2.
11. The article was primarily a report of court
proceedings, information which had already been placed in the public domain.
While the complainant did not consider the details of her divorce to be
newsworthy, this did not affect the publication’s right to publish information
given in court. The two details which did not appear to have been previously
heard in court related to her husband’s claims about her assets, and the nature
of her employment. The Committee did not consider that the publication of this
information constituted a failure to respect her private life; there was no
breach of Clause 3.
12. The copy for the article had been provided by an
agency, and was based on a report of open court proceedings, and an interview
with the complainant’s husband. She had not been approached by a journalist in
connection to the article, and the Committee did not therefore consider the complaint
under the terms of Clause 4.
13. The complainant had not provided grounds for her
belief that a journalist had stolen photographs from her computer or loft. The
Committee was satisfied that the pictures had been obtained lawfully by the
agency, in compliance with the Code.
14. There had been no pejorative reference to the
complainant in relation to any of the characteristics covered by the terms of
Clause 12, and this Clause does not generally prohibit the inclusion of
biographical details such as nationality. In any case, given the complainant’s
attempt to divorce her husband in Ukraine, and the subsequent overturning of
proceedings by the UK Courts, her Ukrainian background was relevant to the
story. There was no breach of Clause 12.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 16/01/2015
Date decision issued: 26/03/2015