Decision of the Complaints Committee – 00474-21 A woman v
lep.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that lep.co.uk breached Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion
into grief and shock), Clause 6 (Children), Clause 7 (Children in sex cases),
Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article published in January 2021.
2. This decision is written in general terms, to avoid the
inclusion of information which could identify a victim of sexual assault.
3. The article reported on a court case in which the
defendant pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a child. It gave the age range
of the child at the time of the abuse, and an indication as to when the abuse
stopped. It contained information from the Victim Personal Statement of the
child, and described the circumstances in which the assaults had taken place.
The defendant was named in the article.
4. The complainant said the article contained details which
implied the relationship between the victim and the defendant in breach of
Clause 7. She said that the information in the article was private, and that
its publication was upsetting and an intrusion into the child’s privacy and
grief and shock in breach of Clause 2 and Clause 4, respectively. The
complainant also said that she was not aware that a Victim Personal Statement
would be read in court, or that this could be published, which she also considered
a breach of Clause 2. The complainant also said that the article breached
Clause 6 as, whilst she was not in school at the time of publication due to
lockdown restrictions, the child was very anxious about returning due to a fear
of gossip and having been identified as the victim by the article.
5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
noted that the article did not name the victim, nor give the victim’s age,
address, school, or describe the victim’s appearance or any distinguishing
features. It said that the article did not give the location or timing of when
the crimes took place, and said that it could have happened at any point during
the defendant’s life or in a variety of circumstances. It said the article
neither stated, nor alluded to, a relationship between the defendant and the
victim. It noted that other information was read out in court and that it
deliberately chose not to include this in the article in order not to identify
the victim, or the victim’s relationship to the defendant.
6. With regards to the complaint concerning privacy, the
publication said that the Victim Personal Statement was read out in open court.
The publication said such statements are an important part of the proceedings
and can have a direct impact on the sentence imposed by the court. It noted
that guidance makes clear that such statements may be reported in the media,
and that the judge referred directly to the statement when sentencing the
defendant. The publication also noted that there was further information from
the proceedings that it did not include in the article, but that the
information it did choose to include was relevant in order to paint a picture
of the defendant. The publication said that, therefore there was not a reasonable
expectation of privacy over the information under complaint, and that it was in
the public interest to publish it.
7. The publication said it was important to understand the
nature of the offences for which the defendant was convicted as the charges
which the defendant faced covered a range of potential criminality. It said
that therefore it was imperative to explain the evidence presented to the court
in order to present a fair and accurate account of the proceedings as required
by law, and that doing so did not intrude into the complainant’s grief and
shock in breach of Clause 4.
8. The publication recognised that both the impact of the
offences and court proceedings would have been extremely traumatic for the
victim, but as it did not accept that either the victim or the victim’s school
were identified; it said Clause 6 was not engaged.
Relevant Code 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.
Clause 6 (Children)*
i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at
school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school
without permission of the school authorities.
iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or
photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a
custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material
involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their
children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a
parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's
private life.
Clause 7 (Children in sex cases)*
The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify
children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.
In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence
against a child -
i) The child must not be identified.
ii) The adult may be identified.
iii) The word "incest" must not be used where a
child victim might be identified.
iv) Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies
the relationship between the accused and the child.
Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault)
The press must not identify or publish material likely to
lead to the identification of a victim of sexual assault unless there is
adequate justification and they are legally free to do so. Journalists are
entitled to make enquiries but must take care and exercise discretion to avoid
the unjustified disclosure of the identity of a victim of sexual assault.
*The Public Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they
can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression
itself.
3. The regulator will consider the extent to which material
is already in the public domain or will become so.
4. Editors invoking the public interest will need to
demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication - or journalistic
activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve, and be
proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that
decision at the time.
5. An exceptional public interest would need to be
demonstrated to over-ride the normally paramount interests of children under
16.
Findings of the Committee
9. It is a fundamental principle of open justice that court proceedings
may be reported by the media in an open and transparent way. Nonetheless, the
terms of Clause 7 impose strict constraints on court reporting of cases
involving child victims of sexual offences in recognition of their
exceptionally vulnerable position.
10. The Committee recognised that the publication had taken
steps to reduce the likelihood that the child would be identified as the victim
of the assaults for which the defendant had been convicted. However, Clause 7 (iv) imposes an obligation
on a newspaper to take care that nothing in the report of proceedings implies
the relationship between the defendant and the victim. The article had reported
information heard in court regarding the circumstances in which the offences
had taken place which the Committee considered was sufficient to imply the
relationship between the defendant and the victim in breach of Clause 7.
11. The Committee acknowledged that the publication of
details taken from the Victim Personal Statement had caused the complainant and
the child distress and expressed its sympathy. The statement had been read in
open court during the course of the proceedings and, as a result, had been
placed into the public domain. In circumstances where the child had not been
identified in the article, publication of this information did not represent a
breach of Clause 2 or Clause 4 of the Code, separate to the issues already
addressed under Clause 7.
12. The complaint under Clause 6 (Children) related to
concerns that the child’s time at school might be affected in the future by the
publication of the article. Given that
the child had not been identified in the article, publication did not amount to
an unnecessary intrusion into the child’s time at school. There was no breach
of Clause 6.
Conclusion
13. The complaint was upheld under Clause 7.
Remedial Action Required
14. Having upheld the complaint under Clause 7, the
appropriate remedy was the publication of an adjudication.
15. The Committee considered the placement of its
adjudication. In exercising its powers to determine the nature, extent and
placement of a remedy to a breach of the Code that it has established, the
Committee will have regard to a number of factors including the seriousness of
the breach, its placement within the article, and its prominence. The Committee
is also obliged to act proportionately.
16. The adjudication should be published on the newspaper’s
website, with a link to the full adjudication (including the headline)
appearing in the top 50% of stories on the publication’s website for 24 hours;
it should then be archived in the usual way. The headline to the adjudication
should make clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint, give the title of the newspaper
and refer to the complaint’s subject matter. The headline must be agreed with
IPSO in advance.
17. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as
follows:
A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that lep.co.uk breached Clause 7 (Children in sex cases) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article published in 2021. Clause 7 of the Code
requires that care must be taken that nothing in the report of legal
proceedings implies the relationship between the accused and the child. IPSO
upheld the complaint and has required lep.co.uk to publish this decision as a
remedy to the breach.
The article reported on a court case in which the defendant
pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a child. It contained information which
described the circumstances in which the assaults had taken place, were
reported and the impacts of the prosecution on the child. The defendant was
named in the article.
The complainant said that the article had contained details
which had identified the relationship between the child and the defendant.
The newspaper said that the details reported in the article
were necessary in order to enable the public to understand the facts of the
offence. It provided explanations as to why it did not believe that the details
in the article were likely to contribute to the identification of the victim,
and said it had deliberately left out information which may have led to the
identification of the victim, or their relationship with the defendant.
The Committee recognised that the publication had taken
steps to reduce the likelihood of the victim’s identification, but the article
had reported information heard in court regarding the circumstances in which
the offences had taken place which the Committee considered was sufficient to
imply a relationship between the defendant and the victim. The complaint was upheld as a breach of
Clause 7.
Date complaint received: 15/01/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/05/2021
Independent Complaints Reviewer
The publication complained to the Independent Complaints
Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The
Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did
not uphold the request for review.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
