Decision of the Complaints Committee – 01779-21 Evison v
yorkshirepost.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Jessica Evison complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that yorkshirepost.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 5
(Reporting of suicide), Clause 6 (Children) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) in
an article headlined “North Yorkshire sheep farmer whose partner died by
suicide speaks out on mental health crisis in the industry”, published 18
February 2021.
2. The article reported on a “’mental health epidemic’” in
agriculture and stated that a recent survey by a charity had found “that 88[%]
of farmers under the age of 40 rank poor mental health as the biggest hidden problem
facing farming today". It focused on one case of a woman “who [had] lost
her partner to suicide” in 2019 after he had struggled “with depression”. The
article also stated that he had been “diagnosed with depression shortly before
he died” and that “she had been caring for him” at this time.
3. The complainant, the mother of the man who died, said the
article was inaccurate in reporting that her son had “died by suicide”. There
was still an ongoing investigation into the cause of death and the inquest was
yet to be held. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to claim that her
son had “struggled” with depression. Whilst she accepted that he had been
diagnosed with depression a short time before his death, this did not
constitute a struggle. She also said that the article misleadingly implied that
her son’s partner had been a full-time carer. The complainant also said that
the article breached Clause 3 because it led to her family being contacted by
members of the public; Clause 4 because it had caused distress and was lacking
compassion; and, Clause 5 as it was inaccurate as to her son’s cause of death.
Further, she said the article breached Clause 6 as it related to her child and,
Clause 12 as it discriminated against her son who, she said did not have a
mental illness, as well as against people suffering from mental health
problems.
4. The publication did not accept it had breached the Code.
It said that its story had been based on a press release by a mental health
charity, which presented the case of the complainant’s son and his surviving
partner as one of its case studies. It said it had then interviewed the woman
who had told her story and recorded her account of the life and death of her
partner in good faith. It emphasised that she had a right to speak out about
his death; the fact that the complainant disagreed with her account did not
made it inaccurate.
5. The reporter was told the method of suicide but had
removed this detail and the son’s name to ensure the article was compassionate.
The journalist had also corroborated the fact that the son had died by checking
an online obituary and funeral notice; neither source of information
contradicted the notion that the son had died from suicide and the funeral
notice encouraged donations to a mental health charity. It said this
constituted due care not to publish inaccurate information with regard to
reporting the complainant’s son’s cause of death. In any event, it said that
the disputed claim could not be significantly inaccurate where no finding had
yet been made by the coroner on this point. During IPSO’s investigation, it
also provided confirmation from the police that the death was not treated as
suspicious and that there was currently no active police investigation into the
death.
6. Nonetheless, on becoming aware of the complainant’s
concerns, the publication removed the article. It also offered to publish a
statement from the complainant when it covered her son’s inquest.
7. The complainant did not accept these actions as a
resolution to her complaint.
Relevant Code Provisions
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Clause 5 (Reporting of suicide)
When reporting suicide, to prevent simulative acts care
should be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method used, while taking into
account the media's right to report legal proceedings.
12. 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.
13. Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion,
gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability
must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
14. The Committee first wished to express its sincere
condolences to the complainant for her loss, and empathised with the profound
distress and heartbreak the family had endured.
15. Whilst the disputed claim was presented as a statement
of fact, the context around it was a story that was clearly based on the
account of the woman, who was presented by a registered charity as a case study
of someone who had lost their partner to suicide. The article had been
presented as her story, illustrating broader concerns about mental health in
the farming community. The story made no reference to an inquest nor implied
that there had been an official finding about the cause of death. Further, the
publication had taken steps to corroborate her claims, including checking
publicly available information about the death. In this context, the Committee
concluded that it had taken adequate care over the accuracy of the claim. There
was no breach of Clause 1(i).
16. There was no official cause of death at the time of
writing. The police had confirmed the death was not being treated as
suspicious, that the case had been passed to a coroner, and that an inquest was
yet to be held. In circumstances where the complainant’s son had not been
named; the article had related the woman’s account of her experiences; and it
did not imply that there had been an official finding as to the cause of death,
the Committee did not identify any significant inaccuracy or misleading
statement requiring correction under Clause 1(ii).
17. The complainant had accepted that her son had been
diagnosed with depression, however she said he had not “struggled” with this
for a long period. The article made no claim as to exactly how long the son had
suffered from mental health nor did it make a claim of fact as to the extent of
those issues. The disputed claim appeared in the context of the partner’s own
personal account of the tragedy. The claim that the complainant’s son had been
“diagnosed” and “struggled” with depression did not constitute a failure to
take care not to publish inaccurate information, nor did it give rise to a
significant inaccuracy or misleading statement. There was no breach of Clause
1.
18. The article had stated that the complainant’s son’s
partner “had been caring for him” before he died. The Committee did not agree
that this implied that she had been a full-time carer; it made no claim as to
the extent of care she provided. This reference did not breach Clause 1.
19. Clause 3 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. Concerns about the
behaviour of members of the public, as distinct from concerns which related
directly to the content of the article or the conduct of a newspaper employee,
were not a matter for IPSO.
20. The article was a report on the complainant’s son’s
mental health and death, as well as the experience of his surviving partner.
The Committee acknowledged that the complainant had found the article
distressing and strongly disputed the woman’s account of the events surrounding
the complainant’s son’s death. Nonetheless, the article did not insult the deceased;
it included minimal details about the cause of death and focused on the issue
of mental health in farming more broadly. The publication of the article was
handled sensitively within the meaning of Clause 4. There was no breach of this
Clause.
21. In order to prevent simulative acts, Clause 5 prohibits
the inclusion of excessive detail about the method of suicide used in any given
case. The article did not mention the method of suicide. Clause 6 relates to
intrusions into a specific child’s time at school, approaches to children and
the publication of material relating to their welfare and private life. Its
protection extends to children under 16 or under 18 but in full-time education.
The complainant’s son was aged 19 at the time of the incident reported on.
Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press
from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity,
sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. It does not
apply to groups or categories of people. Whilst the son’s mental health was
referenced, such references were neither pejorative nor prejudicial. Further,
the references to the son’s mental health were genuinely relevant to the story,
where the story centred on mental health and suicide in farming. For these
reasons, there was no breach of Clause 5, Clause 6, or Clause 12.
Conclusions
22. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
23. N/A
Date complaint received: 18/02/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/08/2021
Back to ruling listing