Decision of the Complaints Committee 01690-17 A woman
v mirror.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. A woman
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Heartbroken mum shares
distressing footage of bullies attacking her 12-year-old daughter before
leaving her lying in a gutter”, published on 4 March 2017.
2. The article reported on a physical altercation
involving two young girls, and contained a 40 second video of the incident. The
video showed the two girls walking alongside each other at the side of a road.
It showed one of the girls shouting at the other, before appearing to pull her
to the ground and punch and kick the second girl; the article reported that the
second girl had been “left lying terrified in a heap in the gutter”. Both of
the girls had their faces pixelated. The article reported that that “the sick
footage” had been “filmed by one of the bullies”. The quality of the recording
was affected by the fact that the video was shot at night, in dim light.
3. The article reported that the video appears to show
the second girl being “verbally abused” before being “dragged to the floor in
the middle of the road by another girl”. It said that “a mum has shared
distressing footage of a brutal attack that left her 12-year-old daughter lying
in a gutter in her bid to raise awareness of school bullying “. As well as the
video, the article included stills of the footage, again with both girls’ faces
pixelated. The article reported that “the incident has been reported to West
Yorkshire Police and the distressing footage has been shared more than 4,000
times on social media”.
4. The article contained a statement from the head
teacher of the second girl’s school confirming that “staff spent time with the
student and spoke to parents” and that it had contacted “external agencies” as
the “alleged attacker” was not a pupil at the school.
5. The complainant, the mother of the first girl,
expressed concern that the article inaccurately referred to her 15-year-old
daughter as a “bully”, when the police were aware that her daughter was the
individual involved in the altercation, and the matter was still being
investigated by them.
6. The complainant said that she had not given her
permission for the video to be published, and said that by including it in the
article, alongside its accompanying stills, the newspaper had breached her
daughter’s privacy. The complainant did not accept that it was in the public
interest to report on, or publish footage of, the incident.
7. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that the video showed an anti-social and potentially criminal act, which
was filmed in a public location by another person allegedly bullying the victim.
The newspaper said that it had ensured that the footage and pictures had been
pixelated, in order to protect the identity of those shown. The newspaper noted
that, prior to the article’s publication, the footage had been placed in public
domain, having been circulated on social media. It had also been referred to by
the police in their appeal for information.
8. The newspaper said that it had considered the Code
before publication and decided that it was in the public interest to report on
the incident. It said that the serious and anti-social nature of the activity
was demonstrated by the fact that the police decided to conduct additional
neighbourhood patrols in the area to offer reassurance to the community.
Relevant Code Provisions
9. 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.
v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the
outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an
agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
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. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals,
without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
Clause 6 (Children)*
i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at
school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school
without permission of the school authorities.
iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or
photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a
custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material
involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their
children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position
of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a
child's private life.
The public interest
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:
i. Detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious
impropriety.
ii. Protecting public health or safety.
iii. Protecting the public from being misled by an action or statement of an
individual or organisation.
iv. Disclosing a person or organisation’s failure or likely failure to
comply with any obligation to which they are subject.
v. Disclosing a miscarriage of justice.
vi. Raising or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious
cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public.
vii. Disclosing concealment, or likely concealment, of any of the above.
viii. There
is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
ix. The
regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public
domain or will or will become so.
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.
An exceptional public interest would need to be
demonstrated to over-ride the normally paramount interest of children under 16.
Findings of the Committee
10. Critical to the Committee’s consideration of this
complaint was the fact that it related to a child. While the footage had been
filmed on a public street, and had been shared more than 4,000 times on social
media, the Committee had received no evidence that either the complainant or
her daughter had consented to her being filmed, or to the footage being shared
on social media or otherwise placed in the public domain, let alone published
to a large audience. In these circumstances, the Committee concluded that the
complainant’s daughter had a reasonable, albeit limited, expectation of privacy
in relation to the footage.
11. Nonetheless, whilst the video might have identified
the girl to a limited number of people within her local community beyond those
who were already aware of it from its previous circulation, the newspaper had
taken steps to minimise the extent of this, by not naming her and thoroughly
pixelating the images and footage. In those circumstances, and given the
previous circulation of the footage within the girl’s community, the Committee
considered that any intrusion into the complainant’s daughter’s private life
posed by the further publication of the footage had been limited.
12. The Committee considered that there existed a very
strong public interest justifying publication. There was a public interest in
enabling the second girl’s mother to discuss the effect that the behaviour
featured in the video had on her daughter, and to use the video and stills as
part of that story, particularly where the video itself had formed part of the
incident to which her daughter was subject. There was also a public interest in
contributing to public debate about anti-social behaviour amongst young people,
and the video illustrated vividly, in a way that would not have been possible
through words alone, the nature of the behaviour. Further, the newspaper had
taken steps to limit the extent of the intrusion into the complainant’s
daughter’s privacy. The Committee concluded that in this instance an
exceptional public interest justified publication of the video in its pixelated
form. The complaint under Clause 2 was not upheld.
13. Similarly, the Committee found no breach of Clause 6
(Children). While the footage had the potential to intrude into the
complainant’s daughter’s time at school, given the nature of the behaviour
shown and the significant public interest in publication, this intrusion was
not “unnecessary”. The fact that the complainant’s daughter had engaged in the
activity shown in the video was a matter that related to her, and to the second
girl’s welfare. As such, the Code's starting point is that parental consent
would be required for the publication of the video and stills under the terms
of Clause 6(iii). However, this requirement was overridden by the public
interest in its publication.
14. The Committee finally considered the complaint about
the article’s accuracy. It did not consider that it was significantly
inaccurate or misleading to characterise the complainant’s daughter as a
“bully”, in circumstances where the footage appeared to show the her pulling
another girl to the floor, and punching and kicking her as she lay on the
ground, and had been shared by the alleged victim’s mother, in order to raise
awareness of school bullying. There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusion
15. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 05/03/2017
Date decision issued: 15/06/2017