Decision of the Complaints Committee – 01987-21 A woman v asianimage.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. A
woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
asianimage.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4
(Intrusion into grief and shock), Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) 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.
3. The
article reported on a court case between two spouses. It included statements
from lawyers and attributed various claims to one of the spouses. 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
regarding the marriage. The article contained a quote from the other spouse’s
barrister and an application this spouse made to the judge which was
denied. Information regarding the spouse’s
religion and profession were included.
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 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 that it was inaccurate to report that
the judge had heard information about the marriage. 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 religion,
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 that evidence heard in court, whilst not referenced in the
article, included an application by the complainant’s spouse, which was refused
by the judge, the substance of which should have made clear to the journalist
that the complainant was a victim of sexual assault and therefore 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 religion, profession and that they
considered themselves a victim of abuse, the article had discriminated against
them in breach of Clause 12.
8. After
receiving the complaint, the publication made an offer of resolution to the
complainant. The parties did not agree on a resolution to the complaint and
IPSO began its investigation.
9. In
its first round of correspondence during IPSO’s investigation, 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. In its second substantive response to IPSO’s investigation,
the publication offered to publish a standalone correction on this point, the
wording of which was confirmed later.
10. The
publication noted that the allegations of abuse had been aired in court, and
that the judge had not made a ruling on the allegations. It said it was
important to report this for both parties. The publication provided an email
from the reporter in attendance at court who said that the judge had stated the
reported information about the marriage, and that this had also been said by
the barrister of the complainant’s spouse, and it was therefore accurate to
state that the judge had heard this information. It said that where the
complainant’s barrister was speaking on their behalf, it was not inaccurate to
characterise their barrister’s speech as being said by the complainant.
11. The
publication said that the complainant’s religion, 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.
12. The
publication said the claims made by the complainant during the proceedings did
not constitute claims that they were a victim of sexual assault. It said,
therefore, that Clause 11 was not engaged.
13. 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.
14. The
publication also stated that the complainant’s religion, profession and the
allegation that they were a victim of 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
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. The
first point considered by the Committee was the disputed statement. 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.
18. 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).
19. The
clarification offered by the publication acknowledged the initial inaccuracy
and put the correct position on the record. As the article had been deleted,
the publication offered to publish a standalone clarification, which
represented due prominence. The clarification was offered at the start of
IPSO’s investigation, when it became clear that solely deleting the article
would not resolve the matter, which in the circumstances represented due
promptness. This satisfied the publication’s responsibilities under Clause
1(ii) and there was no breach.
20. 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 also not inaccurate to report what was
written in the complaint’s spouses case outline, even in the complainant
disputed the validity of the claim. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these
points.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24.
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. The complainant’s religion had been heard
in court, and was therefore genuinely relevant to an article involving a court
case. There was no breach of Clause 12.
Conclusions
25. The
complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial
Action Required
26. The
correction which was offered clearly put the correct position on record, and
was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.
Date
complaint received: 01/03/2021
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/09/2021
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The complainant 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 request for review.
Back to ruling listing