Decision of the Complaints Committee – 00599-21 A woman v
Liverpool Echo
Summary of Complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that Liverpool Echo breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy) and Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “I wonder to this day as to whether my arrest was
racially motivated”, published on 18 January 2021.
2. The article reported the concerns of a man that his
arrest by Merseyside Police had been “racially motivated”, after Liverpool
County Court had ruled that his arrest was “not objectively necessary” and had
been unlawful. It stated that the man had been arrested by the police in 2013
following a report made by the complainant that money had gone missing from her
home. It named the complainant and included her partial address and gave an
account of the circumstances leading to the man’s arrest: it stated that
shortly after the man and his son had completed work in a part of the
complainant’s house, the complainant had realised that a sum of money was
missing from the property. The article reported that the complainant had later
told Merseyside Police that she grew suspicious of the pair as their “manner
changed” as they left the property. It reported that the man was arrested
“despite Merseyside Police detectives knowing [the complainant] had not seen
the money for months before [she noticed] it was gone” and that “other people,
including 12 other workmen, had been in and out of the property in the months”,
with none of these individuals arrested or questioned.
3. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same format under the headline: “Black plumber fears 'race was involved' in
unlawful arrest over client's missing £10k”.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate and
misleading, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy), as it suggested that she was
racist. She said that she was not relevant to the story and was an innocent
party, being the victim of a crime that had occurred in her home years prior.
She added that she had not mentioned the man’s race in the witness statement
she gave to the police or made any racist allegations against him. She had
provided the names of all the workmen that had worked at her property at the
time to Merseyside Police. She expressed concern that the newspaper did not
give her the opportunity to respond to the statements concerning her within the
article.
5. The complainant also said that the article breached
Clause 2 (Privacy), because it included her full name and partial address. She
said that she was not involved in the court case brought by the man against
Merseyside Police, and was unaware that it was happening, and in any event did
not consider herself relevant to the report of the case. The complainant was
concerned that she could be easily identified from the information included
within the article and sought its removal. The complainant also said the
article breached Clause 14 (Confidential sources) as it reported information
that she had provided in a witness statement to Merseyside Police.
6. The newspaper did not accept it had breached the Code. It
maintained that the complainant was relevant to the story: the report which had
been made by the complainant to Merseyside Police had led to the man’s arrest,
with the alleged crime having taken place at her home. The newspaper also noted
that the article made clear that the racial element of the story was in
relation to the man’s concerns about the motivation for his ”unlawful arrest”
by Merseyside Police; the article did not imply that the complainant’s initial
suspicions about this individual had anything to do with his race but rather a
change in his “manner”.
7. The newspaper did not accept that publishing the
complainant’s full name, partial address and experience as a victim was a breach
of Clause 2. It said that newspapers were entitled to report on court
proceedings. The witness statement which the complainant had given to
Merseyside Police was included as evidence in the subsequent legal proceedings
brought by the man against the police force. The newspaper provided the trial
bundle from the case to demonstrate that the complainant’s witness statement
and full name had been included in the evidence. Finally, the publication did
not accept that the terms of Clause 14 (Confidential sources) were 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 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. 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 14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential
sources of information
Findings of the Committee
8. The Editors’ Code recognises that publications are
generally entitled to report court proceedings in full, save for particular
circumstances, such as when legal restrictions have been put in place by the
court. The Committee acknowledged that in this instance the complainant was
distressed that personal information, including her name, partial address, and
experience as a victim, had been reported. However, the article was a report of
a man’s concerns about the possible motives behind his arrest after a court
ruled that his arrest by the local police force was “not objectively necessary”
and was unlawful. During these proceedings, the witness statement provided by
the complainant to the police force was included as evidence and, as a
consequence, had been placed into the public domain. As such, the publication
of this information did not represent an intrusion into the complainant’s
private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.
9. The Committee then considered the concerns raised by the
complainant in regard to Clause 1. It noted that the complainant had not
identified a specific inaccuracy within the article but rather was concerned
that the article did not make clear that she had not made any racist
allegations against the individual who had been arrested by Merseyside Police.
The Committee noted that the article had reported the concerns raised by this
individual following the ruling of the court in the case he had brought against
the police and made clear that these concerns related to the police’s conduct
and the potential motivations for their decision to arrest him. There was no
suggestion in the article that the complainant’s report to the police had been
motivated by racism. Furthermore, the Committee was clear that there is no
requirement under the Code to contact individuals prior to publication,
although this may sometimes be appropriate in order to ensure that proper care
is taken over accuracy. In this instance, the newspaper was reporting on
information included in a witness statement provided by the complainant which
formed part of the evidence in the proceedings, of which it had a copy. It had
taken care over the accuracy of the article, and the Committee identified no
inaccuracies. There was no breach of Clause 1.
10. There was no suggestion that an agreement had been made
that the complainant be treated as a confidential source by the newspaper. As
such, there was no breach of Clause 14.
Conclusion
11. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
12. N/A
Date complaint received: 21/01/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/06/2021
Back to ruling listing