Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 00575-22 Simon v thesun.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Peter,
Michael, and Ramana Simon complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy)
and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “COLD CASE 20 years on, there’s no clue about what
happened to my girl who went missing in Germany”, published on 27th July 2021.
2. The
article, written to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the disappearance of
Louise Kerton, was largely based on an interview with Louise’s father, Phil
Kerton. The article described the case as a “cold case” and included details
about the disappearance and Mr Kerton’s recollection of what occurred at the
time. It reported that Louise had gone missing while in Germany after staying
with her boyfriend Peter Simon’s family there during the summer and as she
travelled back to her home in Kent. It said that “the lack of independent
witnesses, Peter’s odd behaviour back in the UK and the revelation his brother
once stood trial for murder led to Louise’s family… asking questions”. The
article quoted from the interview with Mr Kerton, who had said that “[t]here
have been no arrests, no witnesses, - nothing”.
3. The
article stated that Louise Kerton had met Peter Simon, one of the complainants,
“at an ice rink when she was 17. He was 14 years her senior yet they hit it
off”. It went on to state that “[a]fter a year, he invited her to move in to
his flat in Broadstairs within a property owned by his German mother who lived
there with another son, Michael Simon. Louise’s parents Phil and Kath found her
new boyfriend pleasant and likeable but came to view his family — led by
domineering Mrs Simon — as odd”. The article quoted Mr Kerton further as having
said “[h]e [Peter Simon] never seemed to work and we couldn’t help thinking,
what has he been living on? Mrs Simon didn’t trust anyone in authority, police,
doctors or dentists” and that “[o]ne of his brothers had taken his life and
another, Michael, was mentally unwell and had been accused of killing a woman.
He was cleared but after the case she didn’t let any doctor see him over his
mental health. The only treatment he had was when his mother would give him
something to calm him down if he got overwrought.”
4. The
article went on to describe the events leading up to the disappearance, stating
that while in Germany “it appears [Louise’s] health and state of mind
deteriorated”. The article quoted Mr Kerton’s recollection of the events, who
said that: “Neighbours said she appeared very miserable. It must have been
really boring for her — the village was very small.” He also said that “Mrs
Simon also said Louise had fallen ill but as she didn’t trust doctors she was
medicating her with antibiotics she had bought from a pharmacist”. The article
reported that, on the last day Louise was seen, Ramana Simon had taken Louise
to the train station and “[h]aving left the car in a no-parking zone, she took
Louise into the ticket hall, said goodbye and left without seeing if Louise
bought a ticket for the 12.04pm service to Ostend”; the article later
reiterated that “[i]t was never established… whether Louise even bought a train
ticket at Aachen”. The article went on to quote Mr Kerton as having described
Peter Simon as “in tears” after learning that Louise Kerton was not on the
ferry.
5. The
article also said that a difficulty faced by the investigation “was that the
Simons didn’t want to speak to police and criticised Louise’s family for
publicising the search. Phil said: ‘Their view was that Louise had run away
because she was unhappy due to the way we had brought her up. They said we
shouldn’t make a fuss because that would frighten her and she would never come
back’”. It further reported that the Simon family had moved and that “Peter is
now thought to be living in Switzerland”. The article quoted Mr Kerton as
having said “I have always wanted the authorities to explore every possible
avenue to find out what happened to my daughter, any dad would”. The article
was accompanied by a number of photographs, including one of Peter Simon and
Mrs Simon, captioned “Phil [sic] and his mother Ramana at their home in Germany
in 2001”.
6. The
complainants said that the article contained a number of inaccuracies in breach
of Clause 1. They said that it was inaccurate for the article to state that
“[o]ne of his brothers had taken his life” as he had not taken his own life and
had instead died from acute peritonitis and a perforated duodenal ulcer. To
support this, the complainants provided a copy of the death certificate. The
complainants also said that it was inaccurate for Mr Kerton to have stated that
“[t]he only treatment [Michael Simon] had was when his mother would give him
something to calm him down if he got overwrought” as this was untrue, and
Michael Simon was never said to be “overwrought”.
7. The
complainants also said that the headline was inaccurate to refer to the case as
a “cold case” as it was instead a complicated drama, and the article should
have considered other incidents which occurred in the Simon family. The
complainants further said that the article was inaccurate to state that it was
a “revelation” that Louise Kerton’s family found out that Michael Simon had
once stood trial for murder, as Louise’s mother had asked about the trial in
1993 after hearing the innocent verdict. The complainant said that therefore it
was not a revelation, as Louise Kerton’s mother would have told the rest of the
family. The complainants also said that the article inaccurately stated that
Peter Simon and Louise Kerton had met when Louise was 17, whereas they had met
when she was 16, and that Louise had not lived in Peter Simon’s flat, she had
lived in her own flat next door to the family.
8. Further,
the complainant said that it was in breach of Clause 1 for the article to state
that there were “no witnesses” and a “lack of independent witnesses” as there
had been several sightings of Louise around Aachen. The complainants also said
that it was inaccurate for the article to state that Mrs Simon “left without
seeing if Louise bought a ticket for the 12.04pm service to Ostend” and that
“[i]t was never established… whether Louise even bought a train ticket at
Aachen” as their position was that Mrs Simon had accompanied Louise while she
bought a ticket. The complainants further said that it was inaccurate for the
article to state that while in Germany, “it appear[ed] her [Louise’s] health
and state of mind deteriorated” as Louise had been happy in Germany and there
were photos of her smiling.
9. The
complainants also said that a number of the quotes given by Mr Kerton were
inaccurate. They said that it was inaccurate for Mr Kerton to have said: that
“[Peter Simon] never seemed to work and we couldn’t help thinking, what has he
been living on?” as he had to work to pay the mortgage; that “Mrs Simon didn’t
trust anyone in authority, police, doctors or dentists” as she did trust
people; that “Mrs. Simon also said Louise had fallen ill but as she didn’t
trust doctors, she was medicating her with antibiotics she had bought from a
pharmacist” as Mrs Simon was not
medicating Louise and had given her penicillin as she had requested it; that
“Michael, was mentally unwell and had been accused of killing a woman” as at
the time of his arrest, Michael Simon had been assessed as fit to be
interviewed. They also said that the quote “[t]heir view was that Louise had
run away because she was unhappy due to the way we had brought her up. They
said we shouldn’t make a fuss because that would frighten her and she would
never come back” was inaccurate because their view was that Louise had
described difficulties she was facing but she may not have wanted to burden her
family with them, due to their misunderstanding of her. The complainants added
that Louise had explained this unhappiness and told Peter Simon that she would
like to run away from home because of the stress in her family. The
complainants also said it was inaccurate for Mr Kerton to have said that he has
“always wanted the authorities to explore every possible avenue to find out
what happened to my daughter, any dad would”.
10. The
complainants also said that the article had breached Clause 1 by stating that
“the Simons didn’t want to speak to police and criticised Louise’s family for
publicising the search” as the family were compliant and did speak with the
police. They further said that it was inaccurate to describe Mrs Simon as
“domineering”.
11. The
complainants said that the article was also in breach of Clause 2. They said
that it breached their privacy by stating that Peter Simon was now thought to
be living in Switzerland, which they considered was not relevant to the story.
In addition, the complainants said that Clause 2 had been further breached with
the inclusion of the photograph of Peter and Ramana Simon at their home in
Germany; the complainants said that they had no knowledge of the existence of
the photograph and that it had been used without their consent.
12. The
complainants further said that the article had breached Clause 4. They said
that describing Peter Simon as being “in tears” and his behaviour as “odd” was
a breach of Clause 4 as there was nothing odd, and it was a normal response to
be upset given the circumstances. The complainants further said that the
article had breached Clause 4 by stating that “[o]ne of his brothers had taken
his [own] life” as this was insensitive, and offensive and shocking for their
family.
13. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It noted that the
article was based on an interview with Louise’s father, and supported by
information from previous stories which had been in the public domain for many
years. It highlighted that Mr Kerton had a right to express his opinion about
the case. The publication said that it was fully aware of its obligation under
the Code to take care over the accuracy of the information, and the reporter
had attempted to contact Peter Simon before the article was published in order
to give him the opportunity to provide his input. It explained that it had
attempted to locate Peter Simon and discovered that he had likely moved to
Switzerland, but it had not been possible to find an address for him and owing
to Covid travel restrictions it had not been possible to travel to Switzerland
to make inquiries. The publication added that after the article was published,
Peter Simon made contact with the newspaper and the reporter made repeated
attempts to contact him, but no response was received.
14. In
regard to the complainants’ concerns about the statement that one of Peter
Simon’s brothers had taken his own life, the publication said that the
complainants’ current position was at odds with what Peter Simon had said in
the past. The publication said that Peter Simon had told Louise’s family that
his brother had died by suicide and this was included in an official statement
made to the police at the time by Louise’s sister. It said that this was
reported in a newspaper article in 2002, which the publication provided, and
which stated that Louise’s sister had said in her statement to police that Peter
Simon had said “he had spiritualist powers and contacts and that he had similar
feelings when his brother… committed suicide”. The publication said that, given
that the information about the suicide was recorded in a police statement, it
was entitled to rely upon it and took care over the accuracy of the claim. It
added that Mr Kerton corroborated Louise’s sister’s statement and told the
newspaper that he remembered learning about the death of Peter Simon’s brother,
and that “[t]here was no other explanation offered for his death than that it
was a consequence of suicide”.
15. The
publication said that the quote: “[t]he only treatment he [Michael Simon] had
was when his mother would give him something to calm him down if he got
overwrought” was recognisable as Mr Kerton’s recollection of the events. The
publication said that Mr Kerton had said that the family’s mistrust of
authority became worse following Michael Simon’s court case and that medical
professionals were not allowed in the house. He had said that, as a result,
Michael Simon was not able to receive medication or treatment and that, as Mrs
Simon had been a nurse previously, she was happy to administer medication
herself if she had it. While the publication did not consider there had been a
breach of Clause 1 in regard to these points, it said that it would be willing
to remove the reference to the death of Peter Simon’s brother from the article,
and to publish the following clarification as a footnote:
This
article originally quoted Mr Kerton as saying that Peter Simon's brother,
Frank, died by suicide. That was his memory of what the family had been told,
and reflects a witness statement given to police by Louise's sister Angela, in
which she stated that Mr Simon told her Frank had killed himself. We have been
asked to state that Frank Simon's death certificate lists 'acute peritonitis'
and 'perforated duodenal ulcer' as the cause of death following a postmortem
without inquest. Mr Simon further states that his brother Michael Simon was too
ill to receive further medication after being cleared of a murder charge and
that he was not denied access to doctors by his mother.
16. In
relation to the complainant’s concerns about the phrase “cold case”, the
publication said that this meant an unsolved mystery, which was not inaccurate.
It added that the phrase appeared in a tag that preceded the headline and was a
shorthand summary. The publication said that the complainant’s concerns about
the word “revelation” in regard to Louise’s family finding out Peter Simon’s
brother had once stood trial for murder; whether or not Peter Simon and Louise
had met when Louise was 16 or 17, and the specific flat that Louise had lived
in were not significant within the meaning of Clause 1.
17. The
publication said that the statements that there were “no witnesses” and a “lack
of independent witnesses” and the statements that Mrs Simon had not seen Louise
buy a ticket were clearly the opinions of Mr Kerton and his understanding of
the position. It added that it considered any possible inaccuracy arising from
these statements was trivial in the context of the article. In addition, the
publication said that the complainant’s concerns regarding the quote “it
appear[ed] her [Louise] health and state of mind deteriorated”, did not
establish an inaccuracy.
18. In
regard to the quotes given by Mr Kerton, which the complainants said were
inaccurate, the publication said that these were plainly recognisable as Mr
Kerton’s opinion, and his conjecture as to what had occurred. In regard to Mr
Kerton’s claim about the antibiotics, the publication said that the difference
between Mr Kerton’s account and the complainants was trivial. The publication
added that the complainant’s concerns about the quote “the Simons didn’t want
to speak to police and criticized Louise’s family for publicizing the search”
and the description of Mrs Simon as “domineering” were also sections that were
clearly the opinions of Mr Kerton and his recollection of events. It further
said that the claim that “Michael was mentally unwell and had been accused of
killing a woman” made no reference to when Michael Simon had been “mentally
unwell” and did not relate to a specific occasion.
19. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It said that the photograph in
question was taken by a staff photographer at the newspaper, and that its
records showed that it was taken in August 2001. It added that as the
complainants had willingly posed for the photograph, they had no reasonable
expectation of privacy in regard to it. In regard to the inclusion of the
information that Peter Simon was now thought to be living in Switzerland, the
publication said that the reporter discovered this through publicly available
information. In addition, the publication said that the terms of Clause 4 were
not engaged.
Relevant
Code Provisions
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.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
20. The
Committee accepted the publication’s position that the factual disputes over
elements of the article should be considered within their context: an article
that presented the interviewee’s recollections and perspective about the
disappearance of his daughter. Nonetheless, the publication was obliged to
ensure that it took care not to publish inaccurate material and to clearly
distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact.
21. The
Committee first considered the complainants’ concerns that the article had
included inaccurate claims, attributed to Mr Kerton, that “[o]ne of [Peter
Simon’s] brothers had taken his life” and that “[t]he only treatment he
[Michael Simon] had was when his mother would give him something to calm him
down if he got overwrought”. Whilst included in quotes attributed to Mr Kerton,
these were significant factual claims which related to the cause of death of
Peter Simon’s elder brother and the propriety of medical treatment administered
by Ramana Simon in response to a serious condition suffered by Michael
Simon. As such, Clause 1 (i) required
the publication to take care over the accuracy of this information. In regard
to the reported cause of death of Peter Simon’s elder brother, the publication
had provided an article which had been published in 2002 by another newspaper.
This article reported a claim which had been made by Louise’s sister in a
statement she had given to the police, in which she said that Peter Simon had
mentioned that his brother had taken his own life. The publication also said
that Mr Kerton shared this recollection. In relation to the claim regarding the
treatment administered by Ramana Simon the publication’s position was that this
was recognisable as Mr Kerton’s recollection of events. The Committee
acknowledged that the publication had made some efforts to contact Peter Simon
prior to the article’s publication, but it had not been able to trace him. The
Committee was of the view that relying upon one individual’s recollection and
one newspaper article did not amount to taking sufficient care not to publish
inaccurate or misleading information given the serious nature of the claims
being reported. There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 1 (i). The reported
claims were significant, as they concerned the cause of death of a member of
the complainants’ family and the appropriateness of medical treatment
administered by Ramana Simon and required clarification under the terms of
Clause 1 (ii).
22. The
Committee turned next to the question of whether the action undertaken by the
publication was sufficient to avoid a breach of Clause 1 (ii). During IPSO’s
investigation, the publication said that it would be willing to remove the
reference to the death of Peter Simon’s brother from the article and to publish
a footnote clarification confirming the official cause of Peter Simon’s
brother’s death and Peter Simon’s position that his brother Michael Simon was
not denied access to doctors by his mother. The Committee was satisfied that
the proposed clarification made the correct position clear in regard to Peter
Simon’s brother’s death and made his position clear in regard to his brother’s
medical treatment. The clarification had been offered promptly and the proposed
placement of the clarification as a footnote to the online article was
sufficiently prominent. In the view of the Committee, the requirements of
Clause 1 (ii) were met.
23. The
complainants had said that it was inaccurate to refer to the story as a “cold
case” as they felt that it was instead a “complicated drama”, and that the
article omitted to mention other incidents which had occurred in the Simon
family. Where the case remained unsolved after 20 years, it was not inaccurate
to describe it as a “cold case”. In addition, the article did not need to refer
to other incidents which had occurred in the Simon family and which the
complainants considered amounted to a complicated drama, where the article
presented Mr Kerton’s account and perceptions about the disappearance. The
Committee noted that newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of
information they publish, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
24.
Where Louise’s family had found out that Simon’s brother had once stood trial
for murder, it was not inaccurate to state that it was a “revelation”. The
Committee noted that the article made no comment on when this information had
been revealed to the family, and the complainants’ claim as to whom Louise’s mother
might have told was conjecture. In addition, the difference between reporting
that Louise had met Peter Simon when she was 16 or 17 years old, or whether
Louise had lived in Peter Simon’s flat, or the flat next door, did not amount
to significant inaccuracies in the context of the overall article. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on these points.
25. The
Committee noted that the complainants disputed the claims that there were “no
witnesses” and a “lack of independent witnesses” because there had been several
sightings of Louise in Aachen. In any case, the Committee considered that the
references to an absence of witnesses and particularly the reference to a lack
of “independent witnesses” suggested that no one had come forward with
significant information about what had happened to Louise – for example who
might have seen her after she had been reported missing – and the Committee
noted that was not in dispute. The Committee did not consider that those
references went so far as to suggest that there was a complete absence of even
minor witnesses at any point in the overall timeline around her disappearance.
For those reasons the Committee did not establish that this was a significant
inaccuracy in the way suggested by the complainants.
26. In
addition, the complainants had also said that it was inaccurate to state that
Mrs Simon “left without seeing if Louise bought a [train] ticket” and that “it
was never established… whether Louise even bought a train ticket”. The
Committee noted that an earlier article from 2002 also stated that a ticket was
never purchased. Given this, and the absence of material to contradict this
version of events, the Committee did not find a significant inaccuracy in
relation to this point. Further, in relation to whether Louise’s health and
state of mind deteriorated while she was in Germany, the Committee noted that
the article made clear that this was conjecture by stating that it “appeared”
this was the case. The sentence that followed included a quote from Mr Kerton who
had said: “Neighbours said she appeared very miserable. It must have been
really boring for her — the village was very small.” It was therefore clear
that this reflected Mr Kerton’s understanding of his daughter’s state of mind.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
27. The
complainants also considered that several other comments attributed to Mr
Kerton were inaccurate. In relation to the quotes: “Mrs. Simon didn’t trust
anyone in authority, police, doctors or dentists”; “[Peter Simon] never seemed
to work and we couldn’t help thinking, what has he been living on?”; and “I
have always wanted the authorities to explore every possible avenue to find out
what happened to my daughter, any dad would”, the Committee noted that these
were clearly distinguished as Mr Kerton’s recollection of events, and his
personal perceptions, opinions and questions about people in the Simon family.
The quotes were clearly distinguished as comment, and the publication was
entitled to report Mr Kerton’s own recollections and experiences; there was no
breach of Clause 1 on these points.
28. In
regard to Mr Kerton’s recollection that Ramana Simon had said that she had
medicated Louise with antibiotics she had bought from a pharmacist, the
Committee noted that the complainants had accepted that Mrs Simon had bought
Louise penicillin as she had requested it and for that reason this quote was
not significantly inaccurate or misleading. In addition, the complainants
expressed concern that the article had described Michael Simon as “mentally
unwell”, as they maintained that Michael Simon was assessed as fit to be
interviewed at the time of his arrest on the charge of murder. The Committee
noted that the complainants did not dispute that Michael Simon suffered from
problems with his mental health, and they had stated that he had been on
medication and previously been under psychiatric care. The Committee noted that
the article made no comment on when Michael Simon had been “mentally unwell”.
Taking all of this into consideration, the Committee did not consider that this
constituted an inaccuracy. Furthermore, the complainants had said that Mr
Kerton’s account of their view “that Louise had run away because she was
unhappy due to the way we had brought her up” was inaccurate, as their view was
that Louise may not have wanted to burden her family due to their
misunderstanding of her and that Louise had described difficulties she was
facing. The Committee noted that the complainants had said that Louise had
explained her unhappiness and told Peter Simon she would like to run away from
home. Where Louise had told Peter Simon that she would like to run away from
home, the Committee did not consider this was inaccurate or misleading in the
way the complainants described. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these
points.
29. In
regard to whether or not the Simon family had wanted to speak to the police or
whether they had criticised Louise’s family for publicising the search, the
publication had said that this section was clearly based on the opinion of Mr
Kerton. The Committee noted that Mr Kerton had stated that “They said we
shouldn’t make a fuss because that would frighten her and she would never come
back”. The Committee noted that the article did not state that the Simon family
had not spoken to the police, or that they had not been compliant; it stated
that they “didn’t want to speak to police”, which the complainants did not
appear to dispute. Further, the complainants were concerned with the
description of Mrs Simon as “domineering”, as they said this was inaccurate.
The Committee acknowledged that the complainants disputed this description but
considered that this description of her personality was clearly the
publication’s characterisation of Mrs Simon based on Mr Kerton’s opinion of Mrs
Simon in the surrounding interview, for example, where he gave his view that
“Mrs Simon didn’t trust anyone in authority”. There was no breach of Clause 1
regarding these points.
30. The
complainants also said that the article had breached Clause 2 by stating that
“Peter is now thought to be living in Switzerland” and by including a picture
of Peter and Ramana Simon, which they had not given their consent to be used,
as they were unaware of its existence. The Committee first noted that an
individual would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to
the country that they live in; it noted the publication’s position that the
reporter had discovered this through publicly available information. Given
this, publishing the country where the complainant was “thought” to be residing
did not represent an intrusion into Peter Simon’s private life. Further, the
Committee noted that the publication said that the complainants had willingly
posed for the photograph, which had been taken by a photographer on behalf of
the same publication and kept in its archives. The photograph did not reveal
anything private about the complainants; it merely showed their likenesses. In
such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the complainants had a
reasonable expectation of privacy over the photograph. There was no breach of
Clause 2.
31. The
complainants also considered that there had been a breach of Clause 4 as the
article had described Peter Simon as being in “tears”, his behaviour as “odd”,
and by incorrectly stating that “[o]ne of his brothers had taken his [own]
life”, as this was insensitive, offensive, and shocking for their family.
Clause 4 requires that publication is handled sensitively in cases involving
grief or shock and that enquiries and approaches are made with sympathy and
discretion. The Committee noted that describing an individual as crying, where
this was accurate, was not insensitive and was merely a factual description of
what had occurred. Further, while publication should be handled sensitively in
cases of grief or shock, this does not prevent publications from describing
someone’s behaviour negatively, such as the description of the family as “odd”,
and this did not amount to insensitive publication that constituted an
intrusion into the complainants’ grief or shock. In regard to the alleged
suicide of the complainants’ family member, the Committee noted the
complainants’ position that it considered this breached Clause 4. Although
reporting on the death of family members can be very upsetting to family and
friends, deaths affect whole communities, and the requirements publication to
handle publication sensitively does not restrict the right to report on deaths.
The Committee had addressed the complainants’ concerns over the accuracy of the
reference to the death earlier in its decision, and the question under Clause 4
was for the Committee to consider whether the reference to the death was
insensitive. While the complainants maintained that he had not taken his own
life, the Committee did not consider the article reported on the death in a way
that was insensitive. There was no breach of this Clause.
Conclusion(s)
32. The
complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
33. The
clarification which was offered clearly put the correct position on record, and
was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.
Date
complaint received: 20/01/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/10/2022
Back to ruling listing