Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 01646-22 Boreland v Sunday Life
Summary
of Complaint
1. Ben
Boreland complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Sunday Life breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “UDA boss Boreland accuses rivals of
dirty tricks over son’s ‘cocaine’ vid”, published on 6 February 2022.
2. The
article reported on “a ‘prank’ video”, showing the complainant “pretending to
cut cocaine [which] was circulated among loyalists”. It went on to report that
“[i]n the widely-shared recording, Ben Boreland can be seen leaning over a
tiled counter with a line of white powder visible. He then chops the powder
with what appears to be a credit card before turning and smiling as a pal
roars, ‘Ben, you’re a bad article’.”
3. The
article included comments from a “North Antrim UDA member” as well as the
complainant’s father. The former was quoted as saying “now you have [the
complainant] filmed letting on to cut lines of cocaine in a pub toilet. […] The
video is the talk of loyalists in Ballymoney at the moment”. The complainant’s
father was quoted as having said: “That there (video) is a pile of p**s, it was
a joke. Of course it is (being used to get at him). I’m aware of it, it was
sent to me. It was a joke among mates, it’s a pile of p**s.”
4. The
article was accompanied by a still of the video in question, showing the
complainant’s head and shoulders.
5. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same form under the headline:
“Antrim UDA boss Marcus Boreland accuses rivals of dirty tricks over son’s
‘cocaine’ video”.
6. The
complainant said that the article intruded into his private life in breach of
Clause 2. He said that, contrary to the article’s assertion that the video had
been “widely-shared”, it was not widespread and had not been published on any
open forums or social media platforms. He also said that the video which the
article reported on had been taken in a private space: a toilet cubicle into
which an individual – who the complainant did not know – had forced themselves.
Therefore, he considered that the publication of a screenshot taken from a
video filmed in such circumstances intruded into his privacy.
7. The
complainant provided IPSO with a copy of the video; this showed that the video
had been published on Snapchat by a third party. He said that videos posted to
Snapchat were only shared with the account holder’s contacts, and were then
deleted after 24 hours: in this case, the Snapchat video had been shared with
only 12 individuals. He believed the video had also been shared with a number
of journalists via private messages from a fake Facebook account but, to his
understanding, this had not resulted in any reporting other than the article
under complaint. The complainant, therefore, considered that the video was not
in the public domain.
8. The
complainant also said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1; he
considered this to be the case where the video was described in the headline as
a “’cocaine’ vid”, and the body of the article claimed that the video showed
him “chop[ping…] powder”. He said that this was hyper-sensational, and that no
drugs or anything that could be construed as such were at any time present in
the video.
9. The
publication said it did not accept that the article had breached the Code.
Turning first to the question of whether the video was in the public domain, it
said that once a video is shared on Snapchat it can be copied and shared on
other platforms. It said that its journalist had obtained the video via
WhatsApp, and that the source who had provided the video had told them that he
had received it from a WhatsApp group which comprised of 30 people – the source
had, in turn, shared it with more than a dozen people. According to the publication,
the source had said that it was “the talk of the [Ballymoney] area and
spreading like wildfire”. The journalist had also received the video from a
second source via email, and the newspaper said that the second source had also
said that “it was the talk of loyalist sources”. It further noted that the
complainant’s father had said that he was aware the video was “doing the
rounds” and that he himself had been sent the video. It supplied a transcript
of the conversation with the complainant’s father to support its position on
the point; the relevant portion of the transcript was as follows:
Journalist:
I just wanted to let you know, you know, are you aware that it [the video] was
doing the rounds aye?
Complainant’s
father: Of course I was, it was sent to me!
Journalist:
Oh was it, were you aye and it was just your wee lad having a laugh? There was
no, there was no…
Complainant’s
father: Listen mate, it was a joke among mates it was a pile of piss that’s
what it is
10. The
publication also did not accept the complainant’s assertion that the video had
been taken after someone had forced themselves into the toilet cubicle. It said
that the complainant could be heard laughing in the video as the person filming
it referred to him as a “bad, bad article”. It also said that it did not
consider that the video showed the complainant engaged in any private activity;
by the complainant’s own description he was joking with friends, and the video
was filmed in a location where there was no cubicle door or partition
preventing the person from filming – or anyone else in the bathroom at the time
– from approaching the complainant. At no time in the video did the complainant
ask the person recording it to leave. It therefore considered the location in
which the video was taken – a toilet cubicle – to be irrelevant in terms of
privacy.
11. The
publication also said that – while it did not consider that the Code had been
breached, and that therefore a public interest defence was not necessary – it
was its position that highlighting a reporting on the “prank” video was a
matter of public interest, given the complainant’s father’s alleged links to
criminality.
12.
Turning to the complainant’s Clause 1 concerns, the publication noted that the
word “cocaine” appeared in single quote marks in the headline, and that the
article described the video as a “prank”. It further noted that the article
included references to the complainant “letting on” (pretending) to cut cocaine;
it did not claim, as fact, at any point that the video showed the complainant
cutting cocaine. It said that it was also satisfied that the video showed white
powder.
13. The
complainant said that he did not accept that the video was in the public
domain. He said that the definition of something being in the public domain was
that it is widely available on the internet. He said that this was not the case
with the video, as WhatsApp is a highly secure messaging service which is
end-to-end encrypted, and Snapchat videos are deleted after 24 hours. He also
noted that the publication had not shown that the video could be found on any
“public platform”.
14. The
complainant agreed that the video showed him participating in a prank between
friends, but did not accept that jokes between friends did not represent a
private activity. He said that the dynamic between friends was not for public
consumption, and that what is done in private between friends should remain
private. He said that this was especially the case as he was not a public
figure, and was not participating in a criminal activity.
Relevant
Code Provisions
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.
Clause 2
(Privacy)*
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home,
physical and mental 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.
Findings
of the Committee
15. In coming to a decision as to whether Clause
2 was breached, the Committee noted first that the location in which the video
was recorded – a toilet cubicle – is generally a location where an individual
would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the Committee was
mindful that the door of the cubicle in this instance was open. It was evident
from the audio recording of the video (and supported by the complainant’s
account of the incident) that a number of people were present and interacting
with the complainant during the brief period of the filming. The complainant
was participating in a social interaction, and was aware of the presence of the
person filming, as well as the fact that they were filming. In addition, the
cubicle was part of a pub’s toilet facilities and would therefore have been
accessible to members of the public. Taking these factors into account, the
Committee considered that the complainant’s expectation of privacy in this
location was significantly diminished.
16.
There were other factors to consider beyond the location in which the video had
been filmed when establishing whether the complainant has a reasonable
expectation of privacy – and, by extension, whether publishing the article
reporting on the video intruded into the complainant’s private life. The video
showed the complainant, by his account, engaged in a prank with friends. While
the Committee understood that the complainant would have preferred that the
prank had remained confined to a small group of friends, this did not mean that
it was a private activity or that reporting on the “prank” represented an
intrusion into the complainant’s private or family life: details of a ”prank”
do not necessarily relate to an individual’s private or family life, or reveal
anything private about an individual.
17. In addition, the video had been posted on
social media. While the Committee acknowledged that the original group to which
the video was sent to was comprised of 12 individuals, there was no dispute
that it had subsequently been circulated much more widely, to the point that
the complainant’s father had acknowledged to the reporter before publication
that it was “doing the rounds” and had in fact been sent to him. Taking the
nature of the video and the extent of its previous circulation into account, the
Committee did not consider that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of
privacy over the video, or that reporting on its contents represented an
intrusion into his private or family life. There was, therefore, no breach of
Clause 2.
18. Turning to the alleged breaches of Clause 1,
the Committee noted that the phrase “cocaine” in the headline appeared in
inverted commas. This was clarified in the text, which reported that it was “a
‘prank’ video”, showing the complainant “pretending to cut cocaine”, which was
the position shared by the complainant. Where the article reported the
complainant’s position that the video was a prank which showed him pretending
to snort a cocaine-like substance, and clarified that this was the meaning of
the headline – and therefore the complainant’s position aligned with the
article’s reporting on this point – the Committee did not consider that the
complainant’s concerns on this point represented a breach of Clause 1.
19. The
complainant had also said that it was inaccurate to report that the video
showed him “chop[ping…] powder”. However, in circumstances where both parties
accepted that the video showed the complainant bent over a surface and
“pretending to cut cocaine”, the Committee did not consider it to be
significantly inaccurate, distorted, or misleading to report that the video
showed the complainant “chop[ping…] powder”, regardless of precisely what the
video showed. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusion(s)
20. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
21. N/A
Date
complaint received: 14/02/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 04/10/2022
Back to ruling listing