Decision of the Complaints Committee 00668-15 – A woman v Gloucestershire Echo
Summary of
complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Gloucestershire Echo had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Man attacks Good Samaritan who stopped to help woman being
assaulted in Cheltenham town centre”, published on 9 February 2015.
2. The article reported that the complainant’s ex-partner
had been given an 8-month suspended prison sentence after pleading guilty for
charges of assault, affray and possessing a bladed article. It reported that he
had “launched an attack on his estranged partner…and then lashed out at a Good
Samaritan”. The article reported that the defence solicitor had said that “my
client and his ex-partner wish to resume their relationship – she does not
support this prosecution – and they plan to move in together”, and that “they
bumped into each other that night by coincidence and she was preventing him
from seeing his child”.
3. The complainant said that she was not resuming her
relationship with the defendant, rather, she was trying to get on with the
defendant for the sake of their child, and she denied that she was moving in
with him. She said that she did not attend court on the day of the case as she
was not pressing charges, but said that it was inaccurate to state that she did
not support the prosecution. She said that her statement to the police had made
clear that she disagreed with the actions of the defendant, and that she was
not in a relationship with him. However, she could not confirm whether or not
her statement had been used during the court proceedings. She said that, in
circumstances where she had done nothing wrong, the inclusion of her name in
the article represented an intrusion into her privacy.
4. The newspaper said that the article was a fair and
accurate court report. It said that no challenge was made to the defence
solicitor’s submissions in relation to the complainant. The newspaper said that
it took the decision to name the complainant as the victim of an assault
because she was central to the case, and had been named in open court by the
prosecution, the defence and the judge. There was no order preventing the
publication of the complainant’s name. Nevertheless, the newspaper offered to
address the complainant’s concerns by removing the remarks of the defence
solicitor which the complainant had contended were inaccurate.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the
Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
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.
Findings of the Committee
6. The newspaper was obliged report accurately on the
court proceedings, but was not responsible for the accuracy of what was said in
court. There were no grounds for finding that the article was a misleading
account of the court proceedings, and there was no breach of Clause 1.
7. Whilst the complainant had not pressed charges, or
attended court, her name had been disclosed during the court proceedings. Newspapers
are, subject to any restriction on reporting imposed by the Code or the law,
entitled to publish material disclosed during legal proceedings. Where such
material is heard in open court it is, in any case, already in the public
domain. In this instance, whilst the Committee understood that the complainant
was upset by the article, there was no breach of Clause 3.
Conclusions
8. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 11/02/2015
Date decision issued: 12/05/2015