Decision of the Complaints Committee 02021-19 A Woman & A Man v The Bolton News
Summary of Complaint
1. A woman and a man complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Bolton News breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) in the preparation and publication
of an article which was published in March 2019.
2. The article reported on a father’s account of “facing the
nightmare that his children will soon have a convicted paedophile as a
step-father”. It said that a convicted child sex abuser, who it named as the
male complainant, was soon to marry the man’s ex-wife, who lives with their
three children. It reported that the male complainant “was convicted of abusing
and grooming a 14-year-old girl in 2011” and said that he had used internet
chatrooms to groom her before having sex with her on multiple occasions. It
noted that he was sentenced to seven years in jail with an extended licence of
eight years, and was placed on the sex offenders’ register for life, and quoted
a police officer’s comment at the time that his “’propensity for young girls is
clear’”. The article stated that he had been released on licence in 2014, and
that “there is no suggestion he has committed any further offences since his
release”.
3. The article described the father’s “horror” at
discovering the male complainant’s past convictions. It said that the children
“were subject to a child protection plan but were removed from the register by
Bolton Children’s Services earlier this year”; it said that a spokesman for the
Council “explained that they had reached a point where the plan was no longer
necessary”, stating that “’the decision to remove a child protection plan…is
only taken when it is agreed that a child is no longer at risk of serious
harm’”.
4. The article stated that, under the terms of the male
complainant’s release “it is believed [he] cannot spend a night at his
girlfriend’s house when there are children present, according to the dad”. The
article stated that “when he marries his bride, the pair will only be able to
be in the presence of the children if there is another adult present, it is
understood”. The article stated that “the mother” – the female complainant –
had declined to comment.
5. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same format.
6. The complainants said that the use of the term
“paedophile” to describe the male complainant was inaccurate in breach of
Clause 1 (Accuracy). They said that this term referred to a persistent and
focused attraction to prepubescent children, which was not reflected by the
facts of the male complainant’s conviction. They also said that it was
inaccurate for the article to state that the children involved in the case were
removed from the child protection register earlier in 2019, when they had been
removed in 2017, as the female complainant had stated in a phone call to the
editor. The complainants noted that social services’ involvement had continued
after the children were removed from the register, until at least 2018. The
complainants also said that it was inaccurate for the article to state that the
male complainant had to have another adult – distinct from the female
complainant - present when interacting with the children involved. The female
complainant said that she had stated this on the telephone to the editor prior
to publication, and that the Probation Service and Children’s Services had
confirmed to her that they did not provide this information to the publication.
The complainants accepted that the male complainant was not able to stay
overnight at the children’s home.
7. The complainants also said that the article breached
Clause 2 (Privacy) by reporting details of their domestic living arrangements,
and repeating the claim that they had to have another adult present when in the
presence of the children.
8. The complainants also said that the conduct of the
publication’s employees in the preparation of the article breached Clause 3
(Harassment). They said that the editor’s behaviour during phone calls was
antagonistic and intended to cause the female complainant distress and upset,
for instance by repeatedly referring to the male complainant as a “paedophile”
or “rapist”. They said that the editor shouted at the female complainant on the
phone, despite it being clear that her baby was crying at the time.
9. The publication denied that the use of the term
“paedophile” was inaccurate. It said that this term was in common usage in
relation to any individual who had had unlawful sexual relations with a child;
it said that the male complainant had been convicted of abusing and grooming a
child, and engaging in sexual activity with a child, in 2011, and was still on
licence for these offences, which had led to a seven-year jail term, and to the
complainant being placed on the sex offenders register for life. The
publication said that a police officer had stated publicly, in reference to the
complainant’s conviction, that his “propensity for young girls is clear”.
10. The publication said that the information regarding the
time the children had been removed from the register had been provided by the
local council, and had been checked again prior to publication, following a
conversation with the female complainant in which she had declined to comment
on this point, but stated that it was incorrect. It noted that the female
complainant had refused to comment on the record, and had not been willing to
provide the correct position on this point. The publication also denied that
the article gave an inaccurate account of the male complainant’s licence conditions,
with respect to his contact with the children. It said that this was supported
by a statement provided by the Probation Service, and by guidance given by a
named official at the Ministry of Justice, who, when presented with the facts
of the complainants’ case, had commented to the effect that the male
complainant would be unable to be alone in the presence of the relevant
children, and that he would not be able to be in their presence with only the
female complainant present, without a chaperone. The publication said that it
had attempted to put this point to the female complainant prior to publication,
but while she had said it was untrue, she had declined to put the correct
position on record. The publication said that its journalist had made shorthand
notes of her conversations with the named Ministry of Justice official, which
had been used in the publication’s initial responses to the complainant, but
these had subsequently been misplaced. In its first response to the complaint,
the publication offered to issue a clarification on these points, if the
complainants would supply the correct position. When it became apparent during
the course of IPSO’s investigation that the complainants would consider such an
offer, and when they had provided the correct position in relation to these
points, the publication offered the wording below. It said this would appear on
its online homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way, and on
page 5 of its print edition:
CLARIFICATION: [NAMED PARTY]
In an article headlined “[headline]”, published in March, we
described the case of a father whose children would “soon have a convicted
paedophile as a step-father”. We said that the step-children in question had
been removed from the child protection plan “earlier this year”, and that the
step-father, [named party], “will only be able to be in the presence of the
children if there is another adult present”, in addition to his wife. Since the
article was published, the couple have contacted us to say that the
step-children were in fact removed from the child protection register in early
2017. They also say that [named party] can spend time with the step-children
supervised only by his wife, and that this contact does not need to be
supervised by a third adult. We are happy to put their position on the record.
11. The publication also denied any breach of Clause 2
(Privacy). It said that the details of the male complainant’s convictions were
already in the public domain, and he had been extensively identified in
relation to them. It therefore denied that the story added to the existing risk
of identification of the family as being connected to him; any such risk arose
from the publicly-conducted nature of the complainants’ relationship. The
publication said that it had nevertheless taken steps to remove identifying
details from the article, by avoiding using any photographs of the male
complainant; by omitting to name the female complainant, her children, and the
man whose account was reported; and by omitting to refer to the number of
children involved. It noted that there was a strong public interest in the
publication of the story, given that it contributed to debate about the
accommodation of serious child sex offenders in society after their release
from prison, and about the concerns of divorced ex-partners for the welfare of
their children in such circumstances.
12. The publication also denied any breach of Clause 3
(Harassment). It said that there was a significant public interest in the
story, and that its conduct was reasonable and proportionate. It said that its
editor had contacted the female complainant by telephone on three occasions –
firstly, to offer her a chance to participate in the story; secondly, to
respond to concerns she had raised regarding its publication; and thirdly, to
request a copy of a court order she had indicated would have bearing on the
matter. It said that when it was asked to desist contacting the complainant by
telephone, it had done so, despite further calls from her to its own newsroom.
13. The complainants declined the publication’s offer of
clarification.
Relevant Code Provisions
14. 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 his or her private
and family life, home, 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.
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.
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:
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
15. In relation to the article’s claims regarding the
children’s removal from the child protection register and the male
complainant’s licence conditions, the publication said that it contacted the
relevant official bodies, although it could not provide notes of the telephone
conversations, which was regrettable. The publication had also taken steps to
verify these claims with the complainants, by contacting them directly and at
length multiple times prior to the publication of the article - but they had
declined to make any on-the-record comment on these points in order to set out
the correct position. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider
that there was any failure to take care over these claims, and there was no
breach of Clause 1(i). The Committee then turned to consider whether it was
significantly inaccurate or misleading to report these claims.
16. The Committee noted that the complainants accepted that
the male complainant would not be permitted to be alone with the children who
were referenced in the article and to stay in the same house as them overnight,
but that they said that it was not a requirement that a third individual also
be present, as the article had reported. The Committee noted that the article
had not reported the situation as categorical fact, only that it was “understood”
that the arrangements were as described. Where it was accepted that measures
were in place which imposed restrictions on the male complainant’s contact with
the children, the Committee did not consider that the presentation of the
arrangements in the article was significantly misleading so as to require
correction. Nevertheless, the Committee welcomed the publication’s offer to
clarify this point, which had been made promptly following receipt of the
complaint.
17. Similarly, where it was not in dispute that the children
in question had been subject to a child protection plan, where it was accepted
that social services’ involvement had continued until relatively recently after
the removal of the plan, and where the article made clear the reasons for this
plan being removed, based on a statement from the Council, the Committee did
not consider that the year in which they were removed from the plan was
significant in the context of the article. The article did not give rise to any
significantly misleading impression that required correction on this point.
There was no breach of Clause 1(ii) with respect to either point.
18. The Committee noted the complainants’ position that the
male complainant was not a paedophile, because he did not have an attraction to
prepubescent children, and the offence for which he was committed did not
involve such children. However, the term “paedophile” is also in common usage
to describe individuals who have been convicted of a sexual offence against an
older child. The complainants did not dispute that, as the article reported,
the male complainant had been convicted of “abusing and grooming a 14-year-old
girl…before having sex with her on multiple occasions”. Where the article made
clear the nature of the male complainant’s conviction, it was not misleading to
describe him as a “paedophile”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
19. Turning to the complaint under Clause 2 (Privacy), the
Committee noted that the publication had not named the female complainant and
her children; however, where the male complainant was identified by name, there
was a possibility that they too would be identified. The man whose views were
reported in the article had a right to freedom of expression in relation to his
position.
20. The Committee noted that the information regarding the
male complainant’s conviction was in the public domain, and reporting on this
matter did not intrude into his privacy. The publication said that the
information regarding the arrangements concerning the complainants’ children
had been released by the relevant authorities; however, it was not able to
provide any evidence to support this position. In these circumstances, the
Committee considered that reporting details of the arrangements which concerned
the children was information in respect of which the female complainant and her
children had a reasonable expectation of privacy, publication of which was
intrusive. This information was not otherwise in the public domain and,
therefore, the publication needed to demonstrate an exceptional public interest
to avoid a breach of Clause 2.
21. The Committee accepted that there was a public interest
in publishing the concerns of the father about the contact his children was
having with an individual who had been convicted of child sex offences. The
question for the Committee was whether the public interest was exceptional so
as to justify the inclusion of the information concerning the arrangements
relating to the children. The Committee considered that the report contributed
to a debate on a subject which had an exceptional public interest given that it
concerned the welfare of potentially vulnerable members of society. In all these circumstances, the Committee
considered that the private information published in the article was justified
in the public interest. There was no breach of Clause 2.
22. The female complainant had spoken with the editor by
telephone on a number of occasions. The complainants had not suggested that the
editor had ignored any request to desist in contacting them and therefore, with
the benefit of the recordings, the Committee considered whether the conduct of
the editor during these calls amounted to intimidation or harassment. At times,
the conversations had touched on sensitive and difficult topics, and the tone
of the conversations had been heated on both sides. However, it was clear that
the purpose of the phone calls was to give the complainants the opportunity to
respond to the matters which were to be published in the article. The female complainant had engaged fully in
these discussions, continuing the conversations for long periods on each
occasion, including after they had become heated. While the Committee accepted
that the phone calls had caused the female complainant distress, the Committee
did not consider that the editor had behaved in such a way which amounted to
intimidation. There was no breach of Clause 3 (Harassment).
Conclusions
23. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial action required
24. N/A
Date complaint received: 07/03/2019
Date decision issued: 03/01/2020
The Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
