Decision of the Complaints Committee 01327-14 Mouelhi v Daily Mail
Summary of complaint
1. Mesbeh Mouelhi complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail had breached Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in article headlined “Divorcee, 51, left penniless after she spent £18k on Tunisian toyboy, 22”, published on 31 July 2014.
2. The article told the story of the complainant’s partner’s former husband, to whom she said she had given her life savings before deciding to seek a divorce. She was, at the time of publication, in a relationship with the complainant, and the article noted that both men were young and Tunisian.
3. The complainant said that the newspaper had published photographs of him without his consent, and he had not given permission for his personal details to be published. He said that this breached Clause 3. He also said that the article had prompted people to criticise him, but did not explain further why this constituted a breach of Clause 12.
4. The newspaper said that the story had been provided by a respected news agency, with which the complainant’s partner had signed a contract. It said that she had supplied the photographs which were used, and that the newspaper had not been required to seek permission from the complainant before publishing them. It said that the article had made clear that the complainant’s partner is very happy in her relationship with the complainant, and that nothing further was disclosed about the complainant’s private life.
5. With regard to Clause 12, the newspaper said that the complainant’s nationality was referred to in a neutral and non-prejudicial way; it was genuinely relevant as the complainant’s partner’s former husband was also Tunisian. It did not believe that its article had raised a breach of the Code.
6. Nonetheless, and as a gesture of goodwill, the newspaper offered to remove the photographs of the complainant from the online article and add in any views which he would like to express on the matter. It noted that only his first name had been included, but offered to remove this from the online article, if he would prefer to be anonymous.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. Clause 3 (Privacy)
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including pictures.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
8. The article under complaint was the story of the complainant’s partner’s relationships. She was entitled to tell her story, in accordance with her right to freedom of expression. While the Committee acknowledged the complainant’s concern about the inclusion of details which he considered to be personal, in light of the nature of the information and the fact that it had been provided to the newspaper by his partner, the Committee concluded that the publication of this information did not raise a breach of Clause 3.
9. The complainant’s partner had also provided the photograph of the complainant to the newspaper, and she had been remunerated for its use; it had not been obtained in a way which intruded into his privacy. Further, it did not reveal any information about him which would be considered private under the terms of Clause 3. There was no breach of Clause 3.
10. While it was regrettable that the complainant had received criticism following publication of the article, this would not in itself engage the terms of Clause 12.
11. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
Date complaint received: 07/10/2014Date decision issued: 20/02/2015 Back to ruling listing