Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 00627-22 Doe v You (The Mail on Sunday)
Summary
of Complaint
1. Andrew
Doe complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that You (The
Mail on Sunday) breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “In which I’m told I neglect my dogs”, and a podcast of
the same name, published on 23 January 2022 and 21 January 2022 respectively.
2. The
article under complaint was a ‘diary’ piece by a well-known columnist. The
article discussed her “New Year break” and the care the writer had taken of her
horses and dogs. The writer said they “got a text, forwarded to me by Stef, the
woman who organised the rescue of [the writer’s dog] from Romania. It was from
a man. [The complainant]. His real name, I wonder? He wrote…‘Dear Stef. can I
ask, when you arranged for [the writer], the Mail on Sunday journalist, you
were aware of her past history of having such animals. One eviscerated a sheep.
Her dogs are so badly house trained, they are barely trained at all. She’s
given to leaving them in cars on a hot day’”. The article said the complainant
“went on. And on” and the writer was “so upset that [they] could lose” their dog.
3. The
article also appeared online under the headline “Liz Jones's Diary: In which
I’m told I neglect my dogs”.
4. The
podcast involved the columnist and their assistant “dissect[ing] [their] weekly
YOU magazine diary”. During this, the columnist said, “I got a text from Stef
the woman who organised the rescue of Teddy from Romania. It was from a man.
[The complainant]. Probably not his real name. He wrote, to Stef, he wrote her
a letter, ‘Dear Stef. can I ask, when you arranged for Liz Jones, the Mail on
Sunday journalist, whether you were aware of her past history of having
animals. One eviscerated a sheep. Her dogs are so badly behaved, they are
barely trained at all. She leaves them alone in a car on a hot day…’”.
5. The
complainant said that the article and podcast breached Clause 2 (Privacy)
because they included his name and the content of private messages that he had
sent to a third party who was not a journalist. He said he had sent a Facebook
message to the owner of a dog rescue organisation via her business page and
that she had assured him that she did not pass on his name to the columnist. He
further stated that, whilst he had discussed his intention to send such a
message with his friends, he had not shared the message with anyone before it
appeared in the article. The complainant said that members of an online forum
had been able to find his email address, website, and photos of him from the
information in the article.
6. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It stated that the complainant
did not know the owner of the animal rescue centre and did not follow the
organisation’s Facebook page. By sending a message to a stranger, the
publication argued the complainant had lost control over what could happen with
it. It said, in addition, that the message did not contain private information
about the complainant, but instead contained serious allegations about the
columnist, with whom he was also not personally acquainted. The publication
said that the columnist was allowed to defend herself against such allegations
and did so via the article and podcast. Where the content of the message was
not private and where it was sent to a stranger through a Facebook page, the
publication said there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. It said the
complainant’s name was given to the journalist by someone who was aware of the
situation. It did not want to name that individual as it did not think it was
fair for their name to be disclosed to the complainant as they were not a
journalist and not subject to the investigation.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
7. The
Committee had regard for the terms of Clause 2 (i), which specifically
referenced respect for an individual’s digital communications. The question for
the Committee was, therefore, whether the article, in reporting the content of
a message sent by the complainant to a third party via Facebook and identifying
him as the sender, had disclosed information over which the complainant had a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
8. In
this instance, the correspondence had been sent by the complainant to a
business page run by someone whom he did not know personally and contained
allegations about a third party – the columnist. The owner of the business page
was not known to the complainant and the correspondence had not been identified
as private; this did not, therefore, amount to personal, private communication
over which the complainant would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In
addition, the message contained allegations about the columnist and did not
contain any information about the complainant that could be considered personal
or private. The Committee concluded, therefore, there was no reasonable
expectation of privacy over the message and there was no breach of Clause 2 in
relation to its publication in the article or its inclusion in the podcast.
Conclusion(s)
9. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
Date
complaint received: 24/01/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/09/2022
Back to ruling listing