Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 00750-20 Manchester United v The Sun
Summary
of Complaint
1. Manchester
United, and on behalf of Ed Woodward, complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3
(Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and
publication of an article headlined “Thugs target Utd chief Ed/THUGS” and an article
headlined “CRIME SCENE Cops investigate at Ed Woodward’s house after thugs
target Man Utd chief with flares and spray walls with red paint”, both
published on 29 January 2020.
2. The
first article reported that a “furious Manchester United mob” of “around 20
hooded fans” had thrown “a smoke bomb and fireworks” at the house of Ed
Woodward, reported to be the Manchester United chief executive. The article
outlined the events that had taken place during the incident; the group had
rang an intercom, sprayed red paint on the gate of the property before
“launching their missiles”. It included a quote from a source, stating,
“Woodward has been a disaster as chief executive and needs to leave the club…
these guys decided to pay him a visit to tell him to his face. They didn’t get
to speak to him but, hopefully, he’ll get the message.” It reported that at the
club’s home ground there had recently been “increasingly vitriolic chants aimed
at Woodward” and that in November a fan had approached Mr Woodward and carried
out a physical prank in a bar. The article went on to outline a previous
occasion which had been reported on contemporaneously by the newspaper, whereby
fans from the same football club had attended the home of a former player who
had said he wanted to leave the club. The article was accompanied by a
photograph from the recent incident. It showed hooded individuals outside the
gates of a property and the light of a flare or firework could be seen in the
air above the gate. The article also reported the county the property was in,
and its estimated value.
3. The
article was also published online with the headline “ED DEVILS Man Utd fans
throw flares at Ed Woodward’s house in shocking scenes as anti-board protests
continue to escalate”. The online
article was substantially the same as the print version. It also reported that
some of the hooded men were “believed to be members of United’s notorious “Men
in Black” hooligan firm” and reported that it was not believed that Mr Woodward
and his family were home at the time of the incident. It also included
statements from the police and the football club regarding the incident.
4. The
second article, which appeared online only, reported on the aftermath of the
incident. It included new photographs of the property, which showed the damage
and that the police were in attendance. One photograph showed an intercom on a
pillar which had been sprayed red, others showed the gates, drive and front of
the property. One photograph had seemingly been taken through the gate, and
another, showing the drive and side gable of a building, had been taken when
the gates were open. It also included a short video which showed a flare being
launched across the gates of the property. The article again reported the
general location of the property and repeated the details from the first
article relating to the actions of the fans at the incident.
5. The
complaint was brought on behalf of Manchester United and its Executive Vice
Chairman Ed Woodward. The complainants said that the journalist and
photographer’s involvement in the
incident constituted harassment in breach of Clause 3. They said that the
incident reported on was extremely serious in nature, and had involved criminal
damage, public order offences and harassment, which they believed had been
encouraged by the presence of the journalist and photographer. The complainants
believed that, without the publicity given to the event by the presence of the
journalist and photographer, the attack may not have gone ahead. They also said
that the references to previous conduct by fans in the article was
irresponsible and constituted harassment, as it encouraged further behaviour of
this sort. The complainant was extremely concerned that the publication, upon
receipt of a “tip- off” before the event, did not take steps to inform the
club, Mr Woodward, or police and did not make any attempt to establish whether
Mr Woodward and his family would be home at the time. They said that in such
circumstances, the actions of the journalist and photographer constituted
harassment and intimidation in breach of Clause 3 (i). The complainants said, further, that the
conduct of the journalist and photographer was not consistent with the
principles set out in the Preamble of the Code and that they had acted against
the public interest.
6. The
publication did not accept any breach of the Code. The publication did not
accept that the presence and actions of the journalist and the photographer
constituted harassment. It said that the terms of Clause 3 did not prevent
journalists from attending and reporting on protests, nor does the Code impose
an obligation on journalists to report crimes, or potential crimes, to the
police. The publication provided press coverage of the London riots in 2011 as
an example of a situation where journalists and photographers would have
witnessed criminal activity whilst reporting on events. It said their role was
to inform the public, not to act as de facto police officers. The newspaper
also disputed the complainant’s claim that the presence of a journalist
encouraged the participants, and guaranteed publicity for the incident which it
otherwise would not have received; it said footage of the incident was circulating
on social media before the articles were published, and other publications had
reported on this social media content prior to publication of the articles
under complaint. It said the incident would have gone ahead and been reported
on regardless of whether or not the journalist attended and that the
journalist’s attendance meant that the publication was able to report on the
incident accurately. Further, the newspaper said that its coverage also
condemned the attack, calling those involved “thugs”.
7. The
newspaper said that the journalist did not know the nature of the incident in
advance, and had no reason to believe it would be anything other than a
peaceful and lawful protest. It provided
an account of the sequence of events that had led the journalist and
photographer to attend the event. It said that the journalist had received a
phone call in which he was told that a group of fans was planning a protest in
connection with Manchester United. Following this phone call, the journalist
engaged a photographer who accompanied him to the event. The publication said
that the journalist had not been informed of the location of the protest
beforehand, and had been told to attend a certain pub, where he identified
individuals he believed may have been attending or organising the protest. He
was then directed to another pub, where a number of other individuals joined
the group. They then walked a short distance to a gated house. The journalist
said that he heard someone ring the buzzer at the front gate, and receive no
answer. Some of the group started to video the incident and, as a result, the
journalist saw that a spray can had been used. The journalist said that, at the
end of the incident, he saw someone let off a smoke bomb or flare and the group
then left. The publication said that during the incident the journalist and
photographer stood apart from the participants, but close enough to hear and
see what was going on. It also said that the interactions between the
journalist and the participants had
been limited; the journalist had asked for directions to the location and, when
asked to comment on how the quotes within the article had been obtained, the
newspaper explained that, it had
obtained comment from one participant after the incident had concluded.
8. The
newspaper also said that after the incident, the Digital Sports Editor
contacted a representative of Mr Woodward to see if he knew what had
happened. The newspaper said that Mr
Woodward was the appropriate person to inform of the criminal act, as it was
his property and the event had now concluded. The journalist was also contacted by the police regarding the incident.
The newspaper said that while he was not obliged speak to the police regarding
their investigation, he cooperated fully. It said that the journalist was told
by the investigating officer that he was only ever considered a witness, not a
suspect.
9. Upon
receipt of the publication’s account, the complainants maintained that the
actions and presence of the journalist and photographer constituted harassment.
They said that even if the journalist did not know that the protest was to take
place at a private family home, where the journalist was, in advance of the
incident, directed from pub to pub, under cover of darkness by people described
in the article as, ”hooded”, “thugs”,
and a “mob” with spray paint and flares, it was evident that a peaceful and lawful protest was not going to
take place. They also said that the journalist had engaged with some of the
participants, by obtaining directions to the second pub and the quote published
in the article and the complainants did not accept that the publication’s
representatives were distinguishable from the group carrying out the criminal
activity. They also disputed that the phone call between the Digital Sports
Editor and the complainant was only to confirm the veracity of the footage they
intended to publish. They said that Clause 3 could not be interpreted so
narrowly so as to prohibit harassment and intimidation by journalists but to
allow journalists to be present, and in their belief, complicit, while others
carried out harassment and intimidation and then publish articles based on that
misconduct.
10. The
complainant also said that the photographs and video published in both
articles, along with the text of the articles, breached Clause 2 (Privacy).
They said that the articles, including the photographs, disclosed the location,
layout and configuration of Mr Woodward’s
home, which prior to publication of these articles was not in the public
domain. The complainant said that the publication of the photographs in conjunction
with the release of a police statement regarding the incident which included
the locality of the house, would have revealed Mr Woodward’s address. They said
that given the nature of the attack at the property on which the articles were
based, publication of this information was especially irresponsible and had
increased the security risk to the family. The complainant said that his
address was subject to a confidentiality order, due to these security concerns.
11. The
publication did not accept that Clause 2 had been breached. It said that the
articles only reported the county in which the house was located and its
approximate value. It said the photographs which showed a gate, intercom, and a
section of the front of the property were not sufficient to lead to
identification. The newspaper also said that other publications had published
photographs of the complainant’s home following the incident, which did not
appear to be subject to any complaint.
12. The
complainants also expressed concern that following the submission of the
complaint to IPSO, a staff member at the club had been contacted about the
complaint by a member of the publication’s staff. During this conversation, the
complainants’ decision to submit a complaint to IPSO was discussed, and
following the call an article was also published concerning this staff member’s
attendance at a football game. The complainants said that this was not
acceptable, and was an attempt by the publication to pressurise the
complainants into not pursuing their complaint.
13. The
newspaper did not accept that the actions of any of its staff members could be
interpreted in this way. It said that their representative simply reiterated
the publication’s position that there had not been a breach of the Code. It
said that the fact of an IPSO complaint did not prevent it from reporting on
individuals linked to the football club.
Relevant
Code Provisions
14.
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 3
(Harassment)
i)
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They
must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing
individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave
and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom
they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are
observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant
material from other sources.
*The Public
Interest
1. There
may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be
in the public interest.
The
public interest includes, but is not confined to:
2. There
is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
3. The
regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public
domain or will become so.
4.
Editors invoking the public interest will need to demonstrate that they
reasonably believed publication - or journalistic activity taken with a view to
publication – would both serve, and be proportionate to, the public interest
and explain how they reached that decision at the time.
5. An
exceptional public interest would need to be demonstrated to over-ride the
normally paramount interests of children under 16.
Findings
of the Committee
15. The
Committee noted the seriousness of the circumstances that led to the complaint.
The attack on the property by men wearing hoods, and the use of spray paint and
flares, would undoubtedly have caused significant alarm and distress to the
family had they been home at the time. It was clear that the knowledge that
such an incident had taken place had itself caused the family serious distress
and had led to concerns about the family’s safety. The Committee considered the
complaints against the publication under Clause 3 (Harassment) which provides that
journalists must not engage in intimidation or harassment or persistent
pursuit, and Clause 2 (Privacy) which provides that everyone is entitled to
respect for their private and family life, including their homes. In reaching
its decisions, the Committee was mindful of the Preamble to the Code.
16. The
complaint under Clause 3 (Harassment), put simply, was that by its conduct in
connection with the event the publication had engaged in intimidation and
harassment. The conduct cited in the complaint included:
Conduct
before the event: Giving the event “guaranteed publicity” by indicating its
intention to attend the event which thereby encouraged the participants to
proceed; not taking steps to alert the police or the complainants about the
planned event; and failing to take steps to assess the potential impact on the
family.
Conduct
at the event: The journalist and
photographer attending the event and allegedly not taking steps to distinguish
themselves from the participants; the journalist’s engagement with the
participants before, during and after the event.
Conduct
after the event: The publication of
coverage that reported details of the event and referenced previous similar
incidents.
17. The
Committee first considered the journalist’s conduct prior to the event and the
complaint that, in breach of Clause 3, the publication had not taken steps (i)
to stop the event; (ii) to warn any
appropriate law enforcement authority or the complainants about the event; or
(iii) to assess the potential impact of the event on the family. There was a
dispute between the complainant and the publication over the extent of the
publication’s knowledge prior to the event. The publication’s position was that
at the time the tip-off was received, the journalist was not made aware
that Mr Woodward would be the target of
the attack, and the journalist had no reason to believe that the event would be
anything other than a peaceful protest. The extent of the information he had
been given prior to attending the event was limited, it said: he had been
informed that a protest in connection with Manchester United was planned and
was instructed to meet the participants at a named location. The complainant challenged the plausibility
of the publication’s account and alleged that the journalist must have been
aware of the nature of the event either at the time of the tip-off because of
the instructions he was given or once he met the participants because of their
dress and demeanour. The Committee
considered the parties’ respective positions and concluded that there was no
evidence which demonstrated that the publication knew or could reasonably have
suspected that the event would involve an attack on a private home; that Mr
Woodward’s home would be the target; or that there would be any criminal
activity. Further, there was no evidence to suggest that the publication had
misled the Committee as to the extent of its knowledge or its suspicions about
the nature of the event. In such circumstances, any decision taken by the
publication not to alert the police or the complainants of the event was not
capable of amounting to harassment or intimidation under Clause 3; there was no
breach on this point.
18. The
Committee next considered the conduct of the journalist and the photographer at
the event, noting that there was no suggestion that the journalist or the
photographer had participated in the attack on the property. The Committee acknowledged that there was a dispute
between the parties as to whether or how the journalist and the photographer
had sought to distinguish themselves from the participants and as to whether,
when, and to what extent the journalist had spoken to the participants. The
newspaper said that the journalist and photographer had kept a distance from
the group as best they could at the event. The complainants complained that by
virtue of the attendance of the journalist and the photographer at the event,
the publication had effectively encouraged the participants’ activities and
that it had, therefore, assumed some responsibility for the event which
amounted to harassment. The complainants also said that, had the family been at
home, their distress would have been compounded by the presence of two
additional (apparent) participants. The Committee acknowledged the complexity
of the role of a journalist as an observer at newsworthy events, and the
potential for the presence of the press to affect the way such events unfold.
As noted above, there was no evidence that the publication was aware that
crimes would be committed at the property, but even in the event that the
publication had such knowledge, there is a public interest in the reporting of
crime or the threat of crime. A finding that the attendance of the journalist
and the photographer at the event, or that engaging with
the participants to obtain information or to seek comment, amounted to
harassment would directly inhibit the ability of journalists to report on
matters of significant public interest.
The Committee concluded that the attendance of the journalist and the
photographer at the event in a professional capacity, and seeking information
or comment from the participants, did not make them complicit, and did not
constitute harassment under Clause 3 of the Code.
19. The
remainder of the complaint under Clause 3 related to the newspaper’s decision
to proceed with publication of the articles about the event, and the nature of
the articles it had published. The Committee understood that Mr Woodward was
distressed that a prominent article had been published which included details
of the attack that had taken place at his home. While it was sympathetic to the
complainant’s concerns, the Committee
did not find that publication amounted to harassment under the terms of
Clause 3; the articles had reported details of criminal activity at the home of
a high profile individual which was being investigated by the police and
publication was in the public interest. Further, the references in the article
to previous similar incidents provided context and background to the recent
incident and, by including these references, the publication had not endorsed
or supported such action. The inclusion
of this information did not constitute a breach of Clause 3.
20. The
complaint under Clause 2 (Privacy) concerned the publication of information
about Mr Woodward’s’ home. The complainants said publication of the information
posed a security risk by revealing the location of the home and details of its
layout. The publication said that the information about the house published in
the article was limited to the county in which it was located and its
approximate value; the photographs included limited information about the
entrance and drive to the property and a section of the property which was
insufficient to reveal its location or to pose a security risk.
21. The
Committee first considered the complaint that the publication had breached
Clause 2 by revealing the location of Mr Woodward’s home, taking into account
the information which had been provided in the police press release for which
the publication was not responsible. In certain circumstances, publication of
information which identifies the location of a person’s home can constitute an
intrusion into an individual’s private life because of the impact that
publication can have on the person’s right to respect for family life and home
which Clause 2 seeks to protect.
22. The
first article had reported the county in which the property is located and its
estimated value. It was also illustrated with photographs of the event, in
which the gate of the property was visible. The information provided about the
property in the article was limited and the photograph, which had been taken in
the dark, showed only the gate at the front of the property and was closely
cropped. The Committee concluded that the information contained in the article
and in the photograph was not sufficient to identify the location of the
property. The complainants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in
relation to the published information and there was no breach of Clause 2.
23. The
second article included similar details about the property and was illustrated with additional photographs which
had been taken the day following the incident. The images included the gate and
intercom at the front of the property; the drive behind the gate; one side of
the property and an outbuilding. As with the first article, the details
published in the article about the property were limited to the county in which
it was located and its value and the photographs alone did not contain
sufficient information which would allow the property to be readily identified.
The Committee concluded that the information contained in the articles and the
photographs would not reveal the
location of the property to those who were not already aware of it. As with the
first article, the information published in the second article did not breach Clause
2.
24. The
final issue under Clauses 2 related to the potential security risk posed by the
publication of the photographs in the second article, which showed aspects of
the layout of the property. The context in which the photographs were taken and
published was significant: they depicted a potential crime scene, including the
damage to aspects of the property, and showed the presence of the police at the
scene. They formed part of a report on a police investigation into a potential
crime, which was a legitimate matter for press scrutiny. Notwithstanding this,
the Committee gave significant weight to the complainant’s concerns about the
publication of material that revealed the basic layout of the property; the
violent incident the night demonstrated that security concerns relating to the
property were justified, and any potential increase to the threat to the
complainant and his family had the potential for very grave intrusion into
their private lives.
25. The
Committee considered the information which was contained in the
photographs. They showed partial,
exterior aspects of the property, which were visible to the public when the
gates were open and could be seen through the gates when closed. The Committee did not find that publication
of the photographs containing this limited information could reasonably be said
to present a risk to Mr Woodward’s security. The complainants had no reasonable
expectation of privacy in relation to this information and there was no breach
of Clause 2.
26. The
complainant had also raised concerns regarding the conduct of editorial staff
at the newspaper during the complaints process. These concerns did not relate
to the conduct of a journalist during the newsgathering process, or editorial
content published by the newspaper, and therefore did not engage Clause 3 of
the Editors’ Code. Without making any finding in relation to this aspect of the
complaint, the Committee made clear that complainants must be able to pursue
complaints and to seek redress freely and without interference from
publications. In circumstances where
there is sufficient evidence that a publication is seeking to discourage or
deter a complainant from making a complaint, or acts in a way which is intimidating
or distressing to a complainant, the matter will be investigated by IPSO’s
Standards department.
Conclusion
27. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
28. N/A
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
29. The
complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process
followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints
Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request
for review.
Date
complaint received: 07/02/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/10/2020
Back to ruling listingThe Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
