Decision of the Complaints Committee – 01985-21 A woman v
Metro.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that metro.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy),
Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief and shock), Clause 11 (Victims of sexual
assault) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article published in 2021.
2. This decision is written in general terms, to avoid the
inclusion of information which could identify an alleged victim of sexual
assault. The complainant was the spouse who alleged to have been abused.
3. The article reported on a court case between two spouses.
It included statements from lawyers and attributed various claims to the spouse
making the complaint. It reported that this spouse alleged they had been
subject to abuse, which the judge did not make findings on. It also reported
that the judge had heard information about the marriage. Information regarding
the spouse’s profession was included. The article contained a quote from the
other spouse’s barrister and an application this spouse made to the judge which
was denied.
4. The complainant, one of the spouses referred to, said
that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. They said one of the
statements attributed to lawyers had not been heard in court, and was not
accurate. The complainant also said that the article suggested inaccurately that
the information heard by the judge was true,
which they disputed. They accepted that their spouse’s barrister had
said this information in court, but that the judge had not made findings on it.
The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that no findings had been made
over the allegations of abuse, as this had not formed part of the case, was not
the purpose of the hearing, and gave the impression that their allegations
against their spouse were dismissed. The complainant also said they had not spoken
in court, and therefore the article should have attributed claims to their
barrister. They also said that the quote from the spouses’ barrister was not
adequately attributed, and that the claim was not true, though they accepted
this had been part of the court hearing.
5. The complainant also said that the article represented an
unjustified intrusion into their privacy in breach of Clause 2, as it
identified their profession and that they considered themselves a victim of
abuse.
6. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 4
and Clause 11 by identifying them as a victim of sexual assault. The article
named the complainant and included their allegations that their spouse had
abused them. The complainant said the application by the complainant’s spouse,
which was refused by the judge, amounted to them being a victim of sexual
assault and therefore they should not have been named. The complainant said
that being named in the same article as their alleged abuser was highly
distressing and inappropriate in further violation of Clause 4, and that they
had suffered injuries to their mental health as a result of the publication of
the article.
7. The complainant said that by identifying their profession
and that they considered themselves a victim of abuse, the article had
discriminated against them in breach of Clause 12.
8. The publication stated that the court report had come
from a press agency, and that a reporter had been present at court. The
publication said that it had taken care not to publish inaccurate information
by relying on this report. It provided an email from the agency stating that
the disputed sentence had not come from the court, but a phone call with the
complainant’s barrister afterwards, which resulted in a misunderstanding. The
agency amended its copy of the article. On receipt of the complaint, the
newspaper amended the article, and offered to amend it further during IPSO’s
investigation to reflect a further email sent by the complainant’s barrister.
Nonetheless, it did not believe that this was a significant inaccuracy and
therefore it did not offer a correction.
9. The publication said that it was a statement of fact that
the judge had not made a ruling on the allegations of abuse, and that the
article did not imply that it was a domestic abuse hearing. It said that the
complaint’s spouse’s barrister’s skeleton argument had contained the
information about the marriage, and that the judge confirmed this information.
It said it therefore was not inaccurate to report that the judge had heard the
information about the marriage. The publication also said that it was
convention to attribute statements made in court to the relevant parties where
made by the parties’ legal representatives in court on their behalf, with their
full knowledge and consent as the legal representatives speak for the party
concerned. It said that the article made clear that the details were taken from
what was heard and from the legal representatives’ position statements, and did
not claim that the complainant represented themselves.
10. The publication said that the complainant’s profession
and allegations of abuse against them were heard in public court, and therefore
the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information.
On this basis, it said it was not a breach of Clause 2 to report this.
11. The publication said the claims made by the complainant
during the proceedings that they were a victim of abuse did not constitute
claims that they were a victim of sexual assault. It said, therefore, that
Clause 11 was not engaged.
12. The publication said that, in addition to the above, the
article was a fair and accurate report of a public hearing with no reporting
restrictions, and that therefore Clause 4 was not engaged.
13. The publication also stated that the complainant’s profession
and the allegation that they were a victim of abuse, though not sexual abuse,
were raised in the court case and was therefore genuinely relevant to 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 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 11 (Victims of sexual assault)
The press must not identify or publish material likely to
lead to the identification of a victim of sexual assault unless there is
adequate justification and they are legally free to do so. Journalists are
entitled to make enquiries but must take care and exercise discretion to avoid
the unjustified disclosure of the identity of a victim of sexual assault.
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 noted that the complainant’s spouse denied
the allegations of abuse and made clear that its role was to consider whether
the article complied with the Editors’ Code as a report on the proceedings,
rather than to make findings on the veracity of claims heard as part of the
proceedings, including the allegations of abuse which were in dispute between
the parties.
15. The publication had relied on a court report from a
press agency, which had been written by a journalist who was present at the
court. In addition to the information heard in court, the journalist had
contacted the complainant’s barrister to provide clarity on one aspect of the
case. Newspapers are entitled to use reports provided by agencies, but in doing
so they adopt responsibility for the care taken to ensure that information
contained in the published copy is not inaccurate, misleading or distorted.
16. The first point considered by the Committee was the
disputed statement attributed to the complainant’s barrister. The publication
said that this had not been said in court, but rather in a subsequent telephone
conversation between the journalist and the complainant’s barrister. The
complainant said that their barrister had denied this, and pointed out the
statement was not, in any case, correct. There was clearly a conflict in the
two accounts given; in such instances the Committee would generally expect the
publication to support its account in order to demonstrate it had taken
sufficient care over the disputed claim. The publication did not provide any
record or contemporaneous notes of the conversation with the complainant’s
barrister, but only the recollection of the journalist, obtained subsequent to
the complaint. This was not sufficient to demonstrate that care had been taken
not to publish inaccurate or misleading information, and the Committee found a
breach of Clause 1(i) of the Code.
17. The publication said that there had been a
misunderstanding. It appeared to be accepted that there had been some
discussion between the journalist and the barrister regarding the disputed
statement, but that there had been a misunderstanding as to what this impact
would be. This claim was significant and required correction under Clause
1(ii). The publication had not offered to publish a correction and there was a
breach of Clause 1(ii).
18. The complainant had accepted that the court had heard
that they were a victim of abuse, but that the court case was not a fact
finding case on these points. It was therefore accurate for the article to
report that the judge had not made findings on the allegations of abuse; this
did not imply that the allegations had been discounted. The article reported
that the judge heard information about the marriage. Where the complainant
accepted that this was their spouse’s position in court, the article was not
inaccurate on this point. The Committee noted that the complainant believed it
was inaccurate to report that they had said anything during the trial, as their
barrister had been the one to speak. The barrister had been representing the
complainant in the proceedings; in this context, it was not inaccurate to refer
in general terms to the claims made in support of the complaint’s case, on
their instructions, as having been attributed to the complainant. It was not
inaccurate to report what was written in the complainant’s spouse’s case
outline, even in the complainant disputed the validity of the claim. There was
no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
19. With regards to Clause 11, the Committee made clear that
it was not making a finding as to whether the complainant was a victim of
sexual assault, but whether the article had identified them as such a victim.
The complainant had been named in court without reporting restrictions. During
the proceedings, there were allegations that they had been subjected to abuse.
Neither of these allegations constituted an allegation of sexual abuse, and
there was no mention of sexual assault in the article. In these circumstances,
the complainant had not been identified as a victim of sexual assault and there
was no breach of Clause 11.
11. The complainant’s religion, profession and the
allegations of abuse against their spouse were heard in public through the
court proceedings and were not subject to reporting restrictions. It was,
therefore, not a breach of their privacy under Clause 2 to repeat this
information.
20. The complainant also said the publication of the article
was intrusive in breach of Clause 4. The Committee noted that the article was a
report of the court proceedings. Clause 4 makes clear that it does not restrict
the right for publications to report on legal proceedings. The Committee
understood that the publication of the article was upsetting for the
complainant, but it was a report of contemporaneous proceedings that had been
heard in court, and there was no breach of Clause 4.
21. Clause 12 bars irrelevant and pejorative references to
certain characteristics of an individual. As stated, the Committee did not
consider that the complainant had been identified as a victim of sexual
assault, and job titles are not a protected characteristic. There was no breach
of Clause 12.
Conclusions
22. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial Action Required
23. Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, the Committee
considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the
Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the
publication of a correction and/or an adjudication, the terms and placement of
which is determined by IPSO.
24. The Committee found that the newspaper had published a
significant inaccuracy. In circumstances where it was accepted by the parties
this appeared to have arisen from a misunderstanding of a discussion that the
journalist had initiated for the purpose of clarifying the complainant’s
position, the Committee considered that the appropriate remedy was the
publication of a correction to put the correct position on record.
25. The Committee then considered the placement of this
correction. This correction should be added to the article as a footnote. This
wording should only include information required to correct the inaccuracy. The
wording should also be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that
it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press
Standards Organisation. If the publication intends to continue to publish the
online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be
published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction
should be published as a footnote which explains the amendments that have been
made.
Date complaint received: 01/03/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/09/2021
Independent Complaints Reviewer
The complainant and the publication complained to the
Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling
this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process
was not flawed and did not uphold the either of the requests for review.