Decision of the Complaints Committee – 01721-20 Waine v
Galloway News
Summary of Complaint
1. Heather Waine complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Galloway News breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or
shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in two articles headlined:
2. The second article appeared in substantially the same
format online under the headline “Concerns grow over access along public track
through Laurieston forest”, published on 14 January 2020.
3. The first article reported on “a dispute over access
through a forest” with concerns that a “path had been blocked mid-way along its
length at Nether Crae [a house]”. It mentioned that “According to [named
individual], a stone dyke has been erected across the forest road”.
4. The second article similarly reported on “Concerns…over
access along a public track through a Laurieston forest”. It stated that
“Ramblers [had] discover[ed] metal barriers on [a] forest pathway”. It reported
that “Balmaclellan man [named person] and regular visitor [named person], from
Leeds, discovered the new barrier”; and that according to the latter person,
““The path now has a double barricade – a stone wall with wire on top and a
two-metre mesh fence with four-centimetre spikes along it…””. The article
stated that the path “forms part of an eight mile route round Woodhall Loch”
“advertised as “Woodhall Loch circuit” in leaflets given out to guests by
holiday let owners in the area”. Finally, the article stated "The Waine
family [who own Nether Crae] could not be contacted by phone on Monday or
Tuesday". The article contained two pictures of the “barrier”, one of
which showed the complainant on the other side of it, in conversation with the
“ramblers”.
5. The complainant, whose family owned the property, said
that both articles were inaccurate. The articles had referred to there being a
“public track”, “walking route” and a “right of way dispute” which she said was
inaccurate. Whilst she accepted that members of the community council had
argued there was a track; Dumfries and Galloway Council and the complainant’s
solicitors had confirmed there was no public right of way. They had also
confirmed that there was no right to roam under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act
2003 in the area immediately around the house, as this was a designated privacy
zone where the statutory right to roam under the 2003 Act could not be
exercised (hereafter referred to as the “privacy zone”). The first article
mentioned that the “Council has been asked to intervene in [a] dispute over
access through a forest” and the second article used the term “forest pathway”.
The complainant said these descriptions were inaccurate as the alleged track
ran through the family’s garden rather than a forest. The first article
mentioned that “According to [named person], a stone dyke has been erected
across the forest road” and the second article claimed that “The path now has a
double barricade – a stone wall with wire on top and a two metre mesh fence
with four-centimetre spikes along it. It is completely and utterly
unacceptable”. The complainant said that these statements were inaccurate as
the new barricade is not illegal and constitutes an anti-climb fence rather
than a stone wall; although she did not dispute that there was an 80-year-old
stone wall at the boundary. The complainant disputed the first article’s claim
that “It [the track] forms part of an eight-mile route round Woodhall Loch to
Laurieston and back via the A762 south from Mossdale”. Whilst she accepted that
such a route was advertised by a local holiday let owner, there was no such
official route. The complainant disputed the second article’s claim that “The
Waine family could not be contacted by phone on Monday or Tuesday”. She said
this was inaccurate as no call was received during this time. The second
article claimed that “'Balmaclellan man [named person] and regular visitor
[named person], from Leeds discovered the barrier”. The complainant said this
was inaccurate as other people had discovered the barrier before them and the
second named person had never been at the property before, so could not be
termed a “regular visitor”. Finally, the complainant said the second article
was inaccurate as it claimed that “Ramblers discover metal barriers”. She said these
individuals were not “ramblers” as they had travelled part of the way by car
and some of these individuals were reporters.
6. The complainant said the publication breached Clause 2
(Privacy) as the second article pictured her on private land and was taken
without her knowledge or consent. She said that at the time the photograph was
taken she was in the garden of her family home on private land. She went down
to the boundary fence on the quad bike after a camera detected that a vehicle
had approached the boundary. At the boundary there were four individuals
standing on public land, one of whom was a photographer. The complainant
engaged in conversation with two of these individuals for around 10 minutes. At
some point, one of these individuals took a photo of the complainant without
her knowledge. Some of the individuals were critical of the complainant’s
family and the complainant then left the boundary as she did not feel
comfortable. The complainant confirmed that this interaction took place outside
the home’s privacy zone. She also said both articles intruded into her privacy
by mentioning her name and the name of the house. The complainant said the
articles breached Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or
shock) as they were negative about and biased towards her family.
7. The publication did not accept that the articles breached
the Code. With regard to the claims that there was a “public track”, “walking
route” and a “right of way dispute”; it stated that community council documents
mentioned that “the original path remains as the bona fide route”. It said it
did not claim that the path was a right of way but noted that, apart from the
small privacy zone just around the home, the path was in an area where the
right to roam was allowed in accordance with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act
2003. It stated that the two individuals who visited the barrier described
themselves as “ramblers” and “regular visitor[s]”. It said that the claim that
the new barrier was partly made up of a stone “wall” or “dyke” was clearly the
views of named individuals mentioned in both articles. It also said that it
appeared that the track went through a wooded area, which it said was confirmed
by a satellite map of the area. Finally, it said that it was not inaccurate to
state that “The Waine family could not be contacted by phone on Monday or
Tuesday” as a reporter had called and received no answer. It since came to
light that the reporter had an incorrect phone number for the family which he
had taken from a public phonebook. Regarding Clause 2, the publication said
that the name of the house had featured consistently in public community
council documents, was discussed at public meetings and was central to the
story. The community council minutes had recorded a vote in favour of
reinstating an “original route for walkers/cyclists to use” at a public
meeting. The publication also said that the photo of the complainant was
justified. It portrayed the dispute between the walkers and the landowner, with
the barrier in between, which had been the central focus of the articles. It
also said that whilst the complainant was on private land; the photo was taken
from public land. It did not dispute the complainant’s factual account of the
interaction but disputed that those present were in any way abusive towards the
complainant.
8. 85 days into IPSO’s investigation, the publication
offered to amend the second article’s reference to there being a “public
track”. It also offered to publish the following correction as a footnote to
the amended online article:
“A previous version of this article referred to a dispute of
a 'public track'. We have been asked to clarify that it is a dispute over the
public access along the track.”
9. The complainant did not accept this offer.
Relevant Code Provisions
10. 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 correction, promptly and with due prominence, and –where
appropriate- an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
11. 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. 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.
12. Clause 3 (Harassment)*
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment
or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning,
pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on
property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must
identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must
ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care
not to use non-compliant material from other sources.
13. Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and
approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled
sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings.
Findings of the Committee
14. Neither article claimed that there was an official
public right of way running through the property. However, the community
council had described there being an “original route [path] for
walkers/cyclists to use” and it was not disputed that the right to roam under
the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 applied to all but a small section of the
disputed track. As such, it was not misleading to describe the alleged track as
“a public track” or “forest pathway”, or to use the phrase “right of way
dispute”; especially as the articles made clear that access to the track was in
dispute. The publication had not failed to take care over the accuracy of its
descriptions of the disputed path. Nor did the article contain a significant
inaccuracy or misleading claim relating to this. There was no breach of Clause
1.
15. The complainant said it was misleading to state there
was a dispute about access “through a forest” and to describe the track as a
“forest pathway” as the alleged path went through the property’s garden. The
satellite image showed that the alleged path ran through a forested area
regardless of whether it also went through the garden. There was no breach of
Clause 1.
16. That the barrier partly consisted of a “stone dyke” or
“stone wall” was clearly presented as the views of a named individual. The
Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to publish individuals’
views as long as it does so accurately and takes care to distinguish between
comment, conjecture and fact. In any event, the complainant had not disputed
that part of the barrier consisted of an old stone wall, even if the new
barrier was a metal anti-climb fence. Therefore, the named individual’s
descriptions of the barrier were not significantly inaccurate. There was no
breach of Clause 1.
17. The complainant expressed a concern that the new
barricade was not illegal. However, the article did not make this claim
explicitly or implicitly. There was no breach of Clause 1.
18. The second article stated that the disputed path forms
part of a “route…advertised as “Woodhall Loch circuit” in leaflets given out to
guests by holiday let owners in the area”. The complainant had not disputed
that these leaflets had been created, rather she stressed that the route was
not official. Where the article did not claim this route was official and made
clear that this route was the creation of a local “holiday let owner”, there
was no breach of Clause 1.
19. The publication had confirmed that two named individuals
in the second article had described themselves as “ramblers”, which the
complainant had said was inaccurate as they had driven to the barrier on that
day. However, this word did not necessarily mean that these individuals had
walked to the barrier on that very day; rather it conveyed the notion that
these individuals were interested in and practiced rambling, something which
was not disputed. There was no breach of Clause 1.
20. The second article stated that “Balmaclellan man [named
person] and regular visitor [named person], from Leeds, discovered the new
barrier”. The words “regular visitor” did not necessarily mean that this
individual was a regular visitor to the property; rather, it may have meant a
regular visitor to the local area. Similarly, the word “discovered” did not
necessarily mean that these individuals had been the first people to find the
barrier; rather, it may have meant that they had simply become aware of the
barrier on that day. In any event, these details were not significant in the
context of the article as a whole. There was no breach of Clause 1.
21. The second article had claimed that “The Waine family
could not be contacted by phone on Monday or Tuesday”. During the complainant’s
complaint to IPSO it transpired that the reported had had an incorrect
telephone number. This phrase that the “Waine family could not be contacted by
phone” meant only that the complainant’s family could not be reached in the way
the reporter had attempted, which was true. There was no breach of Clause 1.
22. The Committee next considered whether the photo of the
complainant related to the complainant’s private life such that it engaged the
terms of Clause 2. It was accepted that the complainant was in her garden, on
the threshold of her home, when the photograph was taken. This setting meant
that Clause 2 was engaged. The Committee then turned to the question of whether
the whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in these
circumstances. The complainant had chosen to engage and converse with the
individuals at the boundary for some 10 minutes. The complainant herself was
located outside the home’s privacy zone; outside of which there was a right to
roam. Finally, the published photograph had not disclosed private information
about the complainant; it had revealed only her likeness, which was information
which would ordinarily have been seen by members of the public, should they
have been walking past the property at the time. In these circumstances, there
was no reasonable expectation of privacy over the photo. As such, she did not
need to give her consent to be photographed. There was no breach of Clause 2.
23. In general, people do not have a reasonable expectation
of privacy regarding their name or address. In this case, the publication had
also demonstrated that the address, in the context of the dispute, had been
included in public community council documents and discussed at public
meetings. There was no breach of Clause 2.
24. Clause 3 (Harassment) generally relates to the way
journalists behave when researching a news story and is meant to protect people
from being repeatedly approached by the press against their wishes. As the
complainant’s concern did not relate to this and related instead to concerns
that the article was negative and biased, the terms of Clause 3 were not
engaged.
25. Clause 4 generally relates to the sensitivity of the
approaches journalists make to, and the information they publish about,
individuals who have been bereaved or are in state of shock following a
distressing event. As the complainant’s concern did not relate to this and
related instead to concerns that the article was negative and biased, the terms
of Clause 4 were not engaged.
Conclusions
26. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
27. N/A
Date complaint received: 11/03/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/12/2020
Back to ruling listingThe Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
