Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 01789-21 Brewerton v Telegraph.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Keith
Brewerton, acting on behalf of himself and his son Aled Brewerton, complained
to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Telegraph.co.uk 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 “'You have
no authority here!' Handforth Parish Council meeting goes viral after massive
row on Zoom”, 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 included a three-minute clip of
the meeting, and summarised the events of the meeting itself; reporting that a
councillor was removed from proceedings, which prompted “an angry response from
another member of the committee, who loses his patience with the ‘illegal’
meeting and demands that his fellow members ‘read the standing orders - read
and understand them!’” The article further said that the meeting showed “power
hungry councillors accus[ing] each other of ‘appalling behaviour’ and acting
like ‘laughing hyenas’” and that the councillors “struggled to adapt to new
technology” as they held the meeting over a video-calling platform.
3. The
article also reported that the meeting “opens with a war of words between two
of the councillors” and that “others [in the meeting] are unimpressed by those
not taking the proceedings seriously, with one councillor accusing a colleague
of ‘sitting there like 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”. This notice was circulated by IPSO to the press – including
Telegraph.co.uk – on 5 February 2021, at 5:41pm.
5. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1; 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. 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.
6. 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 on their private life; 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.
7. The
complainant then said that he considered that Clause 3 had been breached, as a
journalist from the publication had attempted to call his home. The call, the
complainant said, was made sometime between 5 February 2021 and 8 February
2021.
8. 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.
9.
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.
10. 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.
11. The
publication did not accept that the article breached the Editors’ Code. Turning
first to the complainant’s Clause 1 concerns, it noted that he had not listed
exactly what in the article was inaccurate, but noted that the complainant’s
position – that he had been “illegally evicted” – was reflected in the headline
and article itself; the article made clear that, upon a council member being
evicted from the meeting, another participant referred to the meeting as “illegal”.
It further said that the three-minute clip of the meeting was a fair and
accurate summary of a meeting which lasted over 80 minutes.
12. Addressing
the complainant’s Clause 2 concerns, the publication said that the video showed
a public meeting which – according to the Council’s own website – had been
properly called and was available to be viewed by the public upon request. The
publication further noted that the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act
1960 – which applies to Parish Council meetings, such as the one depicted in
the video – makes clear that “while the
meeting is open to the public any person attending is to be permitted to report
on the meeting" and that Section 1(9) of the Act states: "’reporting’
means - (a) filming, photographing or making an audio recording of proceedings
at a meeting; [or] (b) using any other means for enabling persons not present
to see or hear proceedings at a meeting as it takes place." The publication also noted that 11 members of
the public were present at the meeting and it was therefore open to the public
and subject to the provisions of the Act. It did not, therefore, accept that
the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the
video which was included in the article.
13. While
the publication strongly disputed that the terms of Clause 2 were engaged, it
noted that the terms of Clause 2 were subject to a public interest defence
under the terms of the Editors Code. Given that the reporting of the
proceedings of local governments and council meetings were a matter of clear
public interest, it said that – should the Clause be found to be engaged –
there would still be no breach, owing to the strong public interest in
reporting on a matter of public debate.
14. The
publication accepted that a journalist working for the publication had
telephoned the complainant’s son, but said that this phone call did not amount
to a breach of Clause 3. The journalist had attempted to contact – on a single
occasion prior to 1:49pm on 5 February 2021 – the complainant’s son on a
telephone number used by the complainant’s son for council business; this was
prior to the circulation of the IPSO notice setting out that he did not wish to
be contacted. It said that its position
on this point could be supported by an email from the journalist – which it
provided – which was sent after the phone call at 1:49pm, and referred to the
call having been made. Once the publication had been made aware that the
complainant’s son did not wish to be contacted, it did not attempt to contact
him again.
15. The
publication did not accept that the terms of Clause 4 were engaged by the
complainant’s concerns, and noted that the terms of the Clause are intended to
provide individuals with additional protections following a death or traumatic
event. The occasion of a parish council meeting receiving unwanted press
attention did not reach this bar, and therefore it said the terms of Clause 4
could not be said to have been breached.
16. Regarding
the Clause 10 concerns, the publication said that – regardless of how the video
had been recorded, which it was not in a position to know – it could not be
said that it had sought to obtain or publish material acquired covertly. It
also said that – while it did not consider that the Clause was engaged – that
there was also a public interest in reporting on the proceedings of public
meetings.
17.
Following the publication’s response, in which it had noted that the
complainant had not particularised his concerns over the accuracy of the
article, the complainant said that he had identified the following inaccuracies
within the article. He noted his position that it was inaccurate for the
article to refer to one of the meeting participants as a “member of the
committee”, as the meeting shown in the video was a full Council meeting, not a
Committee meeting. He then said that it was inaccurate for the article to
report that he and his colleagues were “power hungry councillors”, as they were
attempting to raise valid concerns over the running of the council. He further
said that he had not “struggled to adapt to new technology” as he was adept at
using the video-calling software on which the meeting was held.
18. The
complainant then said that it was inaccurate for the article to report that the
meeting “opens with a war of words between two of the councillors”, as one of
the people involved in the “war of words” was not a councillor. He further
noted that the article statement that “one councillor accus[ed] a colleague of
‘sitting there like a laughing hyena’” was inaccurate for the same reason, as
the statement was directed at him and he was not a councillor and therefore not
a colleague of the individual who had made the statement.
19. The complainant then said that the provisions
of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 did not apply, as the
meeting had not been properly called. Therefore, he said, he had a reasonable
expectation of privacy over the video which showed him in his home and which he
said he had not known was being recorded. He further said that the matter of
whether the video was in the public domain prior to the article’s publication
was not relevant.
20. The
publication expressed concern that the complainant had been permitted to expand
on his original complaint during IPSO’s investigation but said that – not
withstanding this concern – it did not consider that any of the alleged
inaccuracies flagged by the complainant constituted significant inaccuracies in
need of correction under the terms of Clause 1. It said that they were clearly
the publication’s characterisation of the meeting, and could be supported by
the video clip included with the article.
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.
The
Public Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked
* where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
(1.) The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
- Detecting
or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.
- Protecting
public health or safety.
- Protecting
the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or
organisation.
- Disclosing
a person or organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any
obligation to which they are subject.
- Disclosing
a miscarriage of justice.
- Raising
or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of
impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public.
- Disclosing
concealment, or likely concealment, of any of the above.
(2.)
There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
(3.) The
regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public
domain or will become so.
(4.)
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.
(5.) An
exceptional public interest would need to be demonstrated to over-ride the
normally paramount interests of children under 16.
Findings
of the Committee
21. The
Committee noted first that it was not in dispute that the three minute 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
22. 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 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 the article and accompanying video 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.
23. The
complainant had raised a number of points of inaccuracy in relation to the
publication’s account of the meeting, though he had not particularised his
accuracy concerns in his first complaint to IPSO. While the Committee noted the
publication’s concerns that the complainant had only fully set out his accuracy
concerns during IPSO’s investigations, it did not consider that this prohibited
it from making a finding on these concerns, where the original complaint had
been made in time and under the terms of Clause 1, and the complainant’s
further explanation of the grounds for the Clause 1 complaint had been
submitted at an early stage of IPSO’s investigation.
24. The
Committee did not consider that it was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or
distorted to refer to one of the meeting participants as a “committee member”
despite that meeting being a full council meeting, where this formed only a
passing reference in the article and the complainant did not dispute that –
although the article reported on a full council meeting, rather than a
committee meeting – the referenced member was also a committee member.
25. The
article under complaint had described meeting participants as “power hungry
councillors” who “struggled to adapt to new technology”, which the complainant
contended was inaccurate. The Committee noted that Editors’ Code of Practice
makes clear the press has the right to give its own opinion, so long as, that
in doing so, it distinguishes between comment and fact. In this instance, the
Committee considered that the nature of the description made clear that it was
the newspaper’s view of the events of the video, rather than an objective
statement of fact: “power hungry” and whether or not an individual is
“struggl[ing] to adapt to new technology” are inherently subjective
descriptions. In addition, the characterisations of the publication had a clear
basis: the video itself, which was included in the article. The Committee
further noted that the article did not claim that the complainants were
power-hungry, or that they had struggled with the technology; this claim was
directed at all meeting participants. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these
points.
26. The
complainant had expressed concerns framed under Clause 1 that the article had
inaccurately described him and another meeting participant as councillors. The
Committee noted that this did appear to be inaccurate; the complainant was the
father of a councillor, and the other meeting participant a public official.
However, it considered that these inaccuracies were minor and insignificant in
the context of the article; the inaccuracies did not alter the accuracy of the
thrust of the article, which was that a contentious meeting in which a majority
of the participants were parish councillors had taken place and had
subsequently gone viral. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
27. 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.
28. The
publication had provided an email which it said demonstrated that the phone
call to the complainant had been made prior to his son’s request not to be
contacted, and the complainant did not dispute this timing. Where Clause 3 does
not prohibit publications from contacting individuals for comment where no
request to desists has been made, provided the contact is not intimidating or
harassing, and there was no request to desist in place at the time of the phone
call, there was no breach of the Clause.
29.
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 video.
30.
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 the complainant’s personal grief or
shock, and there was no breach of Clause 4.
31. 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 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 consider that the publication
engaged in any form of subterfuge or misrepresentation in the recording of the
meeting.
32.
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.
Conclusion(s)
33. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
34. N/A
Date
complaint received: 02/08/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 10/02/2022
Back to ruling listing