Resolution Statement – 01321-20 A Man v Sunday Life
Summary of Complaint
1. A man complained
to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Sunday Life breached
Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) and Clause 11 (Victims of
sexual assault) in an article headlined “OUT OF CONTROL” published on 1 March 2019.
2. The article
reported that a man, described as the son of a high-profile murderer, had been
jailed for various offences, namely, “possession of an offensive weapon, two
counts of threats to kill, burglary with intent to steal and handling stolen
goods”. It also reported that a further “burglary charge was left on the
books”. The article gave details of the man’s offences, including that the
“crime spree began” when he entered a house and “stole [items] from a
13-year-old boy who was in his bedroom”. The article reported that the court
heard in mitigation that he had an extensive criminal record, as well as issues
with “sexual trauma”. Information about his father and his own previous
convictions was also included.
3. The complainant
said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) as it stated that the “crime
spree began” when he had entered a house and “stole [items] from a 13-year-old
boy who was in his bedroom”. The complainant said this was misleading, as he
was only convicted of handling stolen goods in relation to this specific
incident; the burglary charge was dropped. The complainant also said the
article breached Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) as it mentioned his father’s
convictions in circumstances where he was identified as a relative and not
genuinely relevant to this information. Finally, the complainant said the
article breached Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) as it mentioned he had
suffered from “sexual trauma”.
4. The publication
said that the prosecution had named the complainant as the man responsible for
entering the house and stealing items “from a 13-year-old boy who was in his
bedroom”. However, it accepted that the charge of burglary in relation to this
incident was dropped. The complainant was convicted of handling stolen goods in
relation to these items; not of stealing them. Therefore, it was inaccurate to
state that he “stole [items] from a 13-year-old boy who was in his bedroom”.
5. The publication
did not accept it had breached Clause 11. It said that details of “sexual
trauma” were mentioned in court, as part of the complainant’s plea in
mitigation, and there were no reporting restrictions in place. The publication
did not accept in had breached Clause 9 (Reporting of crime). His father’s convictions
and his identity as a relative had been widely reported on before and were also
mentioned in the previous legal proceedings involving the complainant.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. 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.
7. Clause 9 (Reporting of crime)
i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of
crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are
genuinely relevant to the story.
8. Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault)
The press must not identify or publish material likely to
lead to the identification of a victim of sexual assault unless there is
adequate justification and they are legally free to do so. Journalists are
entitled to make enquiries but must take care and exercise discretion to avoid
the unjustified disclosure of the identity of a victim of sexual assault.
Mediated Outcome
9. The complaint was not resolved during direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
10. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered to
publish the following correction:
“AN article published in Sunday Life on March 1, 2020,
stated incorrectly, that [the man] was convicted at Newry Crown Court of
stealing an iPad and Amazon Dot, valued at £310, from a 13-year-old boy who was
in his bedroom at a house in Ballymartin, Co Down. [The man] denied the charge,
which was not proceeded with. We are happy to set the record straight”.
11. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to his satisfaction.
12. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the
Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been
any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 03/03/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 15/05/2020
Back to ruling listing