Decision of the Complaints Committee 01326-14 Allen v The Sunday Times Magazine
1. Penny Allen complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Sunday Times had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “File under friction”,
published 31 August 2014.
2. The newspaper had published an interview with the
complainant’s former husband about a novel he had written set partially in the
family courts. In the interview, he had discussed his own experience with the
family courts as a result of the legal disputes he had with the complainant.
3. The complainant explained that she was the subject of
court orders which prevented her from responding to claims made by her former
husband regarding their experience with the family courts. The complainant was
concerned that her former husband had said that he had never spoken publicly
about the proceedings, and had never wanted the press to be involved in the
matter. She said that this was inaccurate; he had spoken to the press on a
number of occasions. In addition, the complainant was concerned that the
article had quoted from a judgement about her, without making clear that she
had complained about the judge in question, although her complaint had been
ignored.
4. She said it was misleading of her former husband to
say that the case had “floated” between courts, and that he had been
dissatisfied with the children and family court advisory support service. She
also said that the article had inaccurately referred to her as a “spiritual
healer”, rather than a freelance writer.
5. The article had been illustrated with a photograph of
the complainant and her partner wearing gags. The photograph’s caption said:
“…They wore gags to protest against an order banning them from talking about
proceedings”. The complainant said that, in fact, the orders prevented them
from speaking about a number of things, which went beyond the proceedings.
6. The newspaper said that the complainant’s concerns
related to issues arising out of lengthy litigation between the complainant and
her ex-husband. It said that it would not be possible to ascertain what the
exact factual position was on a number of the points raised as there were
continuing injunctions which apparently prevented the complainant from
disclosing information relating to the proceedings.
7. The newspaper made clear that the article was not a
piece of investigative journalism; it was an interview with an author about the
subject of his book and how it touched on his life experiences. The article
made clear that the comments represented his personal views. In this context,
the article did not require the level of forensic analysis which the
complainant had carried out when considering the coverage.
8. The newspaper said that the article had not been
significantly inaccurate in its referral to the complainant’s former husband
having “never spoken about the case”. The author had meant that he had never
spoken in detail about the matter.
9. The newspaper said that it had not been obliged to
refer to the complainant’s complaint to the Lord Chancellor about the judge’s
behaviour. As the complaint was evidently not upheld, it was not relevant.
10. The newspaper provided an article from 1999 which
reported that the complainant had described herself as a “trained spiritual
counsellor and healer”, and quoted extracts from her book on spirituality “The
Face of the Deep”. It did not accept that the reference to the complainant as a
“spiritual healer” had been significantly misleading.
11. The caption to the photograph had used the term
“proceedings” to refer to all matters the injunctions had been designed to
cover, all of which appeared to have arisen out of the divorce and subsequent
family proceedings.
Relevant Code Provisions
12. 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.
Findings of the Committee
13. In the interview, the complainant’s former husband
had spoken briefly about his experience with the courts, and how that had
influenced his work. The article had not presented a detailed account of his
dispute with the complainant, nor had it focused on the proceedings. In these
circumstances, the decision to report his personal views, without having
approached the complainant for comment prior to publication, did not represent
a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article.
14. The interviewee had expressed his view that he had
not wanted the press to be involved in his legal disputes; that he had not
discussed the matter publicly; and that there had been problems with the
process. While the complainant strongly disagreed with these claims, they had
been attributed to the complainant’s former husband, and represented one side
of an acrimonious dispute. There had not been a failure to distinguish comment
from fact, and the publication of his personal views, and his own account of
his conduct, had not been significantly misleading.
15. The newspaper had been entitled to publish the
comments made by the judge about the complainant. In circumstances in which the
complainant accepted that her complaint against the judge had not been upheld,
the omission of information regarding her complaint had not been significantly
misleading.
16. The photograph’s caption had briefly summarised the
complainant’s protest. In these circumstances, the omission of further
information regarding the orders had not represented a significant inaccuracy.
There was no breach of the Code on this point.
17. In the context of an interview with the complainant’s
former husband about his book, the reference to the complainant as a
“spiritualist healer” had not been a significant detail such as to require
correction under the terms of the Code.
Conclusions
18. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 11/10/2014
Date decision issued: 25/03/2015