Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 01787-21 Brewerton v mirror.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Keith Brewerton, acting on his own
behalf and on behalf of his son Aled Brewerton, complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into
grief or shock), and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Parish council meeting
descends into chaos in 'Britain's worst-ever Zoom meeting'”, published on 5
February 2021.
2.
The article, which appeared online only, reported on the response to a parish
council meeting which had a few earlier days gone “viral” on social media and
been covered widely by the press. The article also included a 30-second clip
from the meeting. It gave a summary of the events of the meeting, referring to
“[c]lerk Jackie Weaver”, who was a participant in the meeting. It went on to
report that the “meeting began with an unseen councillor mumbling ‘f*** off’
under their breath” before a dispute began between the meeting participants.
Following this exchange of words, the article reported that “vice-chair Aled
Brewerton, joined by an older unnamed gentleman, proceeded to yell at the clerk
to ‘read the standing orders’”. Then, the article said, “[w]hen fellow
councillor Susan Moore call[ed] for civility, the meeting erupted into
semi-hysterical laughter and two further councillors, Mr Brewerton and Barry
Burkill were removed.”
3.
The article went on to report that, following concerns raised about the title
of the council’s chairman: “Ms Weaver said: ‘The chairman simply declared
himself 'clerk' and notified everybody of the case.’” Finally, the article
reported that: “Those remaining voted to not allow the three men back into the
meeting, with Cllr Cynthia Samson likening one to a ‘laughing hyena’.”
4.
Prior to the complainant making a complaint to IPSO, his son contacted IPSO to
request that it make the press aware that he was “very concerned about
unwarranted and unsolicited approaches from the Press including: emails,
telephone calls and visits to my home” and that he “do[es] not wish to speak to
the Press and wish that journalists do not come into the area surrounding my
home”. The notice referred to “press
coverage of a Handforth Parish Council Meeting which took place on Thursday 10
December 2020.” This notice was circulated by IPSO to the press – including
mirror.co.uk – on 5 February 2021, at 5:41pm.
5.
The complainant said that an approach made a journalist working on behalf of
the publication had breached Clause 3 and Clause 10 of the Editors Code. He
said that, on 5 February, a journalist working for the paper had approached him
and at first had pretended to work as a roofer. He recalled the exchange as
follows:
Journalist:
(Said he was selling roofing)
Complainant:
We don’t accept cold callers.
Journalist:
(Pointed up to the corner roof and said it needed repairing)
Complainant:
It’s fine. I look after it.
Journalist:
(Tried to speak about the roof again but [complainant] cut him off)
Complainant:
I don’t believe you are who you say you are.
Journalist:
(Says he’s from the Mirror but provides no ID. Wants to speak to [his] son)
Complainant:
We are giving no statements.
Journalist
leaves.
6.
The complainant then said that a further approach, made via Facebook Messenger
to his son by a journalist working on behalf of the publication on 18 February
2021, had breached Clause 3 and Clause 10 of the Code. He said that this was
the case as the message had come after a request to desist, issued via IPSO,
had been made, and because his son’s Facebook account allowed friends only to
message him; therefore, he believed that the publication must have “hacked” the
Facebook account to allow it to send the message. The complainant provided a
copy of the message, which said as follows:
“Hi
Aled. I am getting in touch from the Daily Mirror where I'm writing a report
about the parish council meeting last night. I was hoping you'd share your
views on how proceedings unfolded yesterday evening, both in terms of the
chaotic nature of the meeting and how Chairman Brian Tolver handled things. If
you could message me back or drop me a line on […] I'd be very grateful.”
7.
The complainant also said that he considered that Clause 3 had been breached by
the article itself, as it included material which was not compliant with the
terms of the Clause; namely, the video, which he considered had been recorded
illegally.
8.
The complainant then said that he considered that the use of the video breached
Clause 10, as he believed it had been recorded illegally on a secondary device,
such as an iPad; he said he knew this was the case as had it been recorded
directly from a computer, it would have shown a recording logo and there wasn’t
one present in the video. He said that the press had a duty to ensure the video
had not been recorded illegally, and that it had not done so in this case.
9.
The complainant then said that the article included several inaccuracies in
breach of Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code. He said that the video of the meeting
included with the article had been altered, with sequences changed and
interactions omitted. He said that these alterations meant that the video was
not an accurate or correct record of what had happened during the meeting. He
also said that the article was inaccurate in its references to Ms Weaver being
a “clerk” as she was not a clerk for the council. He also said that it was not
the case that that the “meeting began with an unseen councillor mumbling ‘f***
off’ under their breath” as it was not a councillor who had sworn. The article
also, he said, omitted the fact that his son and his fellow councillors had
been “illegally evicted” from the meeting, which he considered to represent a
further inaccuracy in breach of Clause 1.
10.
The complainant then said that it was inaccurate for the article to report that
“vice-chair Aled Brewerton, joined by an older unnamed gentleman, proceeded to
yell at the clerk to ‘read the standing orders’”, as he was the older gentleman
in question and had not shouted during the meeting. He said that it was also
not the case that another councillor had “called for civility”, or that there
had been “laughter”; rather, he said, there was outrage. The complainant also
said that it was inaccurate for the article to report that “Ms Weaver said:
‘The chairman simply declared himself 'clerk' and notified everybody of the
case’”, as the chairman had declared himself clerk to address a situation in
which the council had been left without a clerk, and was attempting to
volunteer his services.
11.
The complainant further said that it was inaccurate for the article to state
that: “Those remaining voted to not allow the three men back into the meeting,
with Cllr Cynthia Samson likening one to a ‘laughing hyena’”, as those who had
been removed from the meeting could not have been readmitted, as they were
completely excluded from the meeting. He also said that no individual had
laughed like a “hyena”; he had laughed during the meeting, but had been
laughing at a television programme which he had been watching while unaware
that he had been readmitted to the meeting.
12.
The complainant also considered that the video included in the article breached
Clause 2, as he appeared in the video and said that he had not been informed at
the time that the meeting was being recorded. Both complainants had been in
their home when the video was recorded, therefore the complainant said that the
use of the video intruded into their private lives; they did accept, however,
that the video had been uploaded to Youtube prior to the article’s publication.
The complainant further noted that, while the public were able to watch the
meeting, this was via a link only, and approximately 5 to 6 members of the
public attended the meeting.
13.
Turning to Clause 4, the complainant said that he considered this Clause had
been breached as he did not consider that publication of the article had been
handled sensitively. He believed that the publication should have done so,
where the viral video had led to great shock amongst his close and extended
family.
14.
The publication said it did not accept that the article breached the Editors’
Code. It confirmed that it had circulated the IPSO privacy notice internally 1
minute after it was received – at 5:42pm – and, furthermore, that it had not
attempted to contact the complainant at his home. The publication did accept
that a journalist working on its behalf had contacted the complainant’s son 13
days after the notice’s circulation. However, it said that in doing so it had
not breached the terms of the privacy notice, as the contact was made in relation
to a different council meeting to the one which had gone viral. It said that
the publication had made the decision to contact the complainant for a comment
on the subsequent meeting having considered the public interest, maintaining
that there was a “clear public interest in this story as it related to the
behaviour of Councillors and Council members within a public meeting”.
15.
The publication denied that it had engaged in any clandestine activity or
subterfuge when it messaged the complainant; it provided a web page which set
out that it was possible to send ‘message requests’ to people who are not
Facebook friends, provided the sender is not blocked. It said that the message
showed that the complainant’s son had blocked the journalist after the message
was sent; it did not, it said, follow that the publication must have engaged in
‘hacking’ to message the complainant.
16.
Turning to Clause 1, it said that the accuracy of the video could be supported
both by viewing the full video of the meeting – which was publicly available
and showed the events of the meeting – and the council’s minutes of the
meeting. It did not accept, therefore, that the video could be said to be
inaccurate, nor did it accept that the video had been altered – it was simply a
30-second clip of the meeting. The publication also said that it was not
inaccurate to refer to Ms Weaver as a “clerk” where the council’s minutes of
the meeting – which it provided – referred to her as such.
17.
While the publication accepted that it could not state with certainty that it
was a “councillor” who had sworn during the meeting, it said it did not
consider that this could be a significant inaccuracy. It said that given the
“aggression, tone and behaviour” of the councillors present during the meeting,
it was reasonable for the publication to assume that it was a councillor who
had made the explicit remark; however, it would be happy to, as a gesture of
the goodwill, amend the article to make clear who did make the explicit remark,
should the complainant be able to tell it who had sworn during the video. It
also did not accept that the article breached the Code by omitting to state
that the complainant’s son and his fellow councillors were “illegally evicted”
from the meeting, noting that this suggestion appeared to be the opinion of the
complainant and was not supported by the minutes of the meeting itself.
18.
The publication also said that it did not accept that it was inaccurate to
report that “Ms Weaver said: ‘The chairman simply declared himself 'clerk' and
notified everybody of the case” or that
“[t]hose remaining voted to not allow the three men back into the meeting, with
Cllr Cynthia Samson likening one to a ‘laughing hyena’” where the video clearly
showed: someone laughing; that a councillor had made the “hyena” comment in
response to the laughter; and that Jackie Weaver had made the comments
attributed to her by the article.
19.
Addressing the complainant’s Clause 2 and Clause 10 concerns arising from the
video, the publication noted that the video was both publicly and very widely
available at the time of the article’s publication, and that the council’s
meeting minutes made clear that a recording of the meeting could be made
available on request. The publication also said that it could not comment on
how the video was recorded, as it was not in a position to know the
circumstances in which the recording was made; it also, therefore, could not be
said to have sought to obtain a video recorded by a hidden camera. With these factors
in mind, it did not accept that the article or video could represent a breach
of Clause 2 or Clause 10.
20.
The publication did not accept that the complainants’ concerns framed under
Clause 4 engaged the terms of the Clause, where the article under complaint did
not relate to a case of grief or shock.
21.
While the complainant accepted that the minutes stated that a recording of the
meeting could be made available on request, he also said that the original
agenda of the meeting did not state that it was being recorded. He further
noted that it was not common practice for such a meeting to be recorded and
made public, and that this was a recent development. He then said that the
publication could not rely on the minutes to substantiate its position, as he
considered that the minutes were inaccurate.
22. The complainant reiterated that a journalist
had approached his home on 5 February, and also said that the journalist had
refused to leave his property when requested.
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.
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.
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.
Clause
10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*
i)
The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden
cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile
telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of
documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without
consent.
ii)
Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or
intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then
only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
Findings
of the Committee
23.
Both parties agreed that a journalist working on behalf of the publication had
sent a Facebook message to the complainant’s son. The questions for the
Committee were, therefore: whether the nature of the contact constituted
harassment or persistent pursuit under Clause 3 (i) and whether the
complainant’s previous request not to be contacted by journalist applied to
this contact, which was relevant to the complaint under Clause 3(ii).
24.
In the view of the Committee, the nature of the contact, in and of itself, did
not raise any concerns under Clause 3; it was a single, politely worded message
in which the journalist identified himself and the publication he worked for,
and made clear why he was contacting the complainant. The sending of this
message, of itself, did not constitute harassment, intimidation, or persistent
pursuit, and there was no breach of Clause 3 (i) on this point.
25.
The Committee next considered the complaint that the contact had been made in
breach of Clause 3 (ii), because of the previous request by the complainant not
to be contacted. The Committee noted that the terms of the request circulated
by IPSO explicitly referred to the parish council meeting which had gone viral,
and made clear that the complainant’s son did not wish to be approached in
relation to this specific meeting. The contact by the journalist related to a
different meeting. The Committee also noted that this second meeting (like the
first) was a public meeting and a legitimate subject for reporting. Taking care
over the accuracy of a report of a council meeting may include contacting
members of that council to seek their comments, as the journalist was evidently
doing in this case. Taking into account the terms of the original request to
desist and the fact that the further request for comment related to a
subsequent development in the story (the subsequent meeting), the Committee
found that this further message did not breach Clause 3 (ii).
26.
The complainant had said that the journalist who approached his home had
initially identified himself as a roofer, before later stating that he was in
fact a journalist working on behalf of the publication. The publication
disputed that any approach had been made to the complainants’ home. The
Committee noted that it was not in a position to resolve this dispute of fact;
however, where the complainant could not say with certainty at what time of day
the approach occurred – and whether it had occurred after a request to desist
had been circulated – the Committee did not consider that there were grounds to
find a breach of Clause 3 on this point.
27.
The complainant had also said that the journalist had refused to leave his
property when requested; however, this was contradicted by the account which he
gave of the exchange – in which the journalist had left of his own accord after
being told that there would be no comment forthcoming. Given the
inconsistencies in the complainant’s retelling of the events, and where the
publication strongly refuted having sent a journalist to the address, the
Committee did not identify grounds to uphold a breach of Clause 3 arising from
the journalist’s alleged refusal to leave the complainant’s property.
28.
While Clause 3 (iii) makes clear that Editors should ensure that the principles
of the Clause are observed by those working on its behalf, the principles of
the Clause relate to behaviour by journalists which could constitute
harassment. The complainant did not allege that the video which he considered
breached Clause 3 had been obtained by the publication – or individuals working
in its behalf – engaging in harassing behaviour towards him. There was no
breach of Clause 3 arising from the use of the 30-second video.
29.
In the complainant’s recollection of the alleged interaction with a journalist
at his home, prior to asking for more information about the viral video, the
journalist had identified himself as a member of the press. It could not therefore
be said that a journalist engaged in subterfuge to obtain material for
publication – where the publication disputed that any approach had been made,
and the complainant’s account of the approach did not demonstrate that a
journalist engaged in subterfuge to gain material – and there was no breach of
Clause 10.
30.
The terms of Clause 10 make clear that the press should not seek to publish
material obtained by using hidden cameras; the purpose of the Clause is to
regulate the publication acquisition of material obtained using clandestine
devices and misrepresentation. In this case, the publication did not know
exactly how the video had been recorded; however, neither party disputed that
at the time the article was published, the video was widely available in the
public domain. The basis advanced by the complainant for claiming the video had
been obtained using a clandestine recording device was that it appeared not to
have been recorded using the internal recording mechanism in the computer
programme used to host the virtual meeting. While the Committee could not
establish with certainty how the meeting was recorded, it did not agree that
the use of a secondary device to make the recording amounted to a “clandestine”
device for the purposes of Clause 10. The video depicted a publicly accessible
meeting, and whether it had been recorded using an in-program recording
function or a secondary recording device had no bearing on the content of the
video. Explicit reference was made in the course of the meeting to the fact it
was being recorded, when a participant referred to a copy being sent to a
monitoring officer. Furthermore, the minutes of the meeting stated that a
recording of the meeting was available. The Committee did not, therefore,
consider that any subterfuge or misrepresentation appeared to have been engaged
in order to make the recording of the meeting.
31.
Furthermore, at the time the article was published, the video from which the
clip was extracted was widely circulating in the public domain and had been
viewed over one million times; the newspaper had not, therefore, been engaged,
either directly or through an agent, in making or procuring the recording. It
could not therefore be said that the newspaper had sought to obtain material
obtained by using a hidden camera, and there was breach of Clause 10.
32.
Turning to the alleged breaches of Clause 1, the Committee noted first that it
was not in dispute that the thirty-second clip of the meeting included with the
article was an excerpt from the recording of the meeting. It was clear from the
description of the meeting included in the text of the article that it was only
an excerpt, rather than an unedited recording of the meeting in full, and that
it had been included as an illustration of some of the exchanges which had
taken place during the meeting. In these circumstances, the Committee did not
consider that the publication of the video in this format was significantly
inaccurate, misleading, or distorted; there was no breach of Clause 1.
33.
The complainant also denied that Ms Weaver was a “clerk”. While the Committee
understood that the complainant disputed the accuracy of the official council
minutes of the meeting, the publication was entitled to rely on these official
documents as the basis for its reporting. This reference therefore did not
represent a failure to take care over the article, or an inaccuracy requiring
correction.
34.
The complainant had said that the article was inaccurate as he considered that
one of the participants in the meeting had acted “illegally”, and that omitting
this information rendered the article inaccurate. The Committee noted that none
of the participants had faced any criminal or civil prosecution at the time of
the article’s publication, and that the allegation of illegal behaviour was a
serious claim which not supported by any publicly available information at the
time of the article’s publication. In addition, the Committee noted the context
of the article; it was reporting on a widely available viral video and was not
a report of any legal proceedings connected to the meeting, nor did it purport
to examine the legal context behind the meeting. The Committee further noted
that video which accompanied the article made clear that some participants
believed that the meeting was being held illegally. With these factors in mind,
the Committee did not consider that omitting the complainant’s allegations from
the article rendered it inaccurate in breach of Clause 1.
35.
While the Committee also noted that the newspaper accepted that it was perhaps
not a councillor who had sworn, the Committee did not consider that this
represented a significant inaccuracy, where it was not in dispute that the
meeting had opened with an individual swearing. The Committee further noted
that the complainant was not acting on behalf of the individual who had sworn,
and that therefore he was speculating as to the identity of the individual who
had sworn. The Committee also noted that neither party disputed that there had been
laughter during the meeting. The article did not specify what triggered the
laughter, and it was therefore not inaccurate in the manner suggested by the
complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
36. While the Committee accepted that the
sentence “vice-chair Aled Brewerton, joined by an older unnamed gentleman,
proceeded to yell at the clerk to ‘read the standing orders’" was somewhat
ambiguous, it noted that the video included with the article made clear that it
was only Aled Brewerton who shouted, rather than his father. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on this point, where the video made the true position clear
and the claim itself was ambiguous, rather than inaccurate.
37.
The Committee then noted that the Editors’ Code of Practice makes clear the
press has the right to publish individuals’ views, as long as it takes care not
to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish
between comment, conjecture and fact. In this instance, the quotes from the
meeting participants included in the article were clearly presented as comment,
and attributed to the individuals responsible for them. In the article, the
quotes from Ms Weaver and the councillor who referred to the complainant
“laughing like a hyena” were clearly attributed to them by way of the use of
quotation marks, and the articles were framed as their view on the meeting
featured in the video. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the publication
had distinguished between comment and fact and had clearly attributed the
comments of Ms Weaver and the councillor to them, in line with the terms of
Clause 1 (iv). The Committee further noted that the video which accompanied the
article demonstrated that there were opposing views, both on the legality of
the meeting itself and Ms Weaver’s role as a clerk. There was, therefore, no
breach of Clause 1 on these points.
38.
The terms of Clause 2 make clear that, when considering an individual’s reasonable
expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the extent to which the
information complained of is in the public domain. In this instance, the
complainant considered that the video included in the article – showing him and
his son in their home – breached the terms of the Clause. However, the video
showed proceedings at a public meeting held by a public body. Further, the
video was available on YouTube at the time of the article’s publication, and
had been viewed well over a million times. In these circumstances, the
Committee did not consider that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of
privacy over the video. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 2.
39.
While the Committee understood that the video going “viral” had caused distress
to the complainant, it noted that the terms of Clause 4 generally relate to
cases involving bereavement, injury, and crime. Where the content of the
article under complaint related to a parish council meeting, the Committee did
not consider that the article related to a case of personal grief or shock, and
there was no breach of the Clause.
Conclusion(s)
40.
The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
41.
N/A
Date
complaint received: 26/07/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/02/2022
Back to ruling listing