· Decision of the Complaints Committee 00571-15 Thompson v Sunday Life
Summary of
complaint
1. Rev Peter Thompson complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Sunday Life had breached Clause 3 (Privacy) and
Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Tyrone cleric baffled by false gay rumours”, published on 3 February 2015.
2. The article reported that the complainant was
“baffled” by “false rumours” that he had been cautioned by police, and also
that he was homosexual.
3. The complainant said that the publication of these
rumours, which were personal in nature, was a breach of his privacy. He said
that he had confirmed to the newspaper prior to publication that the claims
were untrue and unsubstantiated.
4. The complainant said that the newspaper had contacted
him for comment prior to publication, and had contacted the Church of Ireland
Press Office to confirm the identity of the journalist before returning her
call. The complainant was concerned that the newspaper had sought to use his
categorical denial of the allegations in that conversation as justification for
circulating them further.
5. The complainant also said that it was unnecessary to
mention that he had children, especially given the nature of the story; this
breached Clause 6.
6. The newspaper had become aware of the rumours after
being contacted by an unknown source; it then followed up on the rumours with a
person who was familiar with them.
7. The newspaper said that the article was in the public
interest; the complainant was a prominent local figure, and the allegation that
he had a police caution was of a very serious nature. With regard to the
rumours about the complainant’s sexuality, the newspaper said that the
complainant had willingly responded to the journalist’s questions, following
consultation with the Church of Ireland Press Office, and at no point said that
his comments were not for publication.
8. The newspaper said that the article clearly concerned
the complainant’s private life, and that it would not be its usual practice to
contact individuals regarding claims about their sexual orientation. However,
the complainant was a prominent member of his local community, fulfilling a
pastoral role, and it appeared at the time that he was the victim of a
campaign. The newspaper believed that it was reasonable to conclude that the
complainant wanted to take the opportunity to publicly address the claims about
him.
9. The newspaper said that it had only mentioned that the
complainant was a “father of three”, and did not include any of the names or
ages of his children. It said that the fact that complainant had children was
not private.
10. Nonetheless, the newspaper removed the article from
its website as a gesture of goodwill. It also said that it had not wished to
cause further distress to the complainant, and assured him that it would not
report anything further about the matter, unless related criminal proceedings
came before the courts.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. Clause 3 (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.
Clause 6 (Children)
i) Young children should be free to complete their time
at school without unnecessary intrusion.
Public interest
4. The Regulator will consider the extent to which
material is already in the public domain, or will become so.
Findings of the Committee
12. Details of an individual’s sexuality form part of
private and family life and as such receive protection under the terms of
Clause 3 of the Editors’ Code. The complainant had not publicly disclosed the
details of the rumours, which were of a personal nature, and the newspaper had
become aware of them only after being contacted by an unknown source. The
inclusion in the article of his denial was insufficient to justify the
intrusion into the complainant’s private life caused by publication of the
claims, regardless of their inaccuracy. Further, the complainant’s rebuttal of
the allegations in conversation with the journalist did not constitute consent
for publication under Clause 3 (ii). The newspaper breached Clause 3 of the
Code.
13. The claim in the article that the complainant had
been cautioned by police did not relate to his private or family life; it did
not raise a further breach of Clause 3.
14. In mentioning that the complainant was a “father of
three”, the newspaper did not intrude into his children’s time at school. There
was no breach of Clause 6.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
16. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a
breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction
and/or adjudication. The Committee required the publication of this
adjudication as a remedy to the breach. The original article was published on
page 7; the adjudication should be published on page 7 or further forward. A
link to the adjudication should also be published on the homepage of the
newspaper’s website for at least 48 hours, and thereafter archived on the
website in the usual way. The headline to the adjudication should include the
words “IPSO complaint upheld” and make reference to the subject matter of the
original article; it should be agreed with IPSO in advance. The terms of the
adjudication to be published are as follows:
Following an article published in the Sunday Life on 3
February 2015, headlined “Tyrone cleric baffled by false gay rumours”, Rev
Peter Thompson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
(IPSO) that the Sunday Life had intruded into his private life in breach of
Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint
and established a breach of the Editors’ Code. IPSO required the Sunday Life to
publish this decision by its Complaints Committee as a remedy to the breach.
The article reported that the complainant was “baffled”
by “false rumours” that he had been cautioned by police, and also that he was
homosexual.
The complainant said that the publication of these
rumours, which were personal in nature, was a breach of his privacy. He said
that he had confirmed to the newspaper prior to publication that the claims
were untrue and unsubstantiated.
The complainant had been contacted for his comment prior
to publication, and had contacted the Church of Ireland Press Office to confirm
the identity of the journalist before returning her call. The complainant was
concerned that the newspaper had sought to use his categorical denial of the
allegations in that conversation as justification for circulating them further.
The newspaper had become aware of the rumours after being
contacted by an unknown source; it then followed up on the rumours with a
person who was familiar with them.
The newspaper said that the article was in the public
interest: the complainant was a prominent local figure, and the allegation that
he had a police caution was of a very serious nature. With regard to the
rumours about the complainant’s sexuality, the newspaper said that the
complainant had willingly responded to the journalist’s questions following
consultation with the Church of Ireland Press Office, and at no point said that
his comments were not for publication.
The newspaper said that the article clearly concerned the
complainant’s private life, and that it would not be its usual practice to
contact individuals regarding claims about their sexual orientation. However,
the complainant was a prominent member of his local community, fulfilling a
pastoral role, and it appeared at the time that he was the victim of a
campaign. The newspaper believed that it was reasonable to conclude that the
complainant wanted to take the opportunity to publicly address the claims about
him.
Nonetheless, the newspaper removed the article from its
website as a gesture of goodwill. It also said that it had not wished to cause
further distress to the complainant, and assured him that it would not report
anything further about this matter, unless related criminal proceedings came
before the courts.
IPSO’s Complaints Committee made clear that details of an
individual’s sexuality form part of private and family life and as such receive
protection under the terms of Clause 3 of the Editors’ Code. The complainant
had not publicly disclosed the fact that rumours of a personal nature had been
circulating about him, and the newspaper had become aware of them only after
being contacted by an unknown source. The inclusion in the article of his
denial was insufficient to justify the intrusion into the complainant’s private
life caused by publication of the claims, regardless of their inaccuracy.
Further, the complainant’s rebuttal of the allegations in conversation with the
journalist did not constitute consent for publication under Clause 3 (ii). The
newspaper breached Clause 3 of the Code.
Date complaint received: 04/02/2015
Date decision issued: 08/06/2015