Decision of the Complaints Committee 02251-14 Ashiq v Birmingham Mail
Summary of complaint
1. Kiran Ashiq complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Birmingham Mail had breached Clause 3 (Privacy)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Drunk Bordesley Green
husband who beat his pregnant wife jailed for three years”, published in print
and online on 6 December 2014.
2. The article reported that the complainant’s husband
had been jailed after being convicted of assaulting her. The complainant had
been named in the article, which she said was a breach of Clause 3.
3. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code; the
complainant’s name had been given in court and, in the absence of specific
reporting restrictions, it was entitled to publish this information.
Nonetheless, it had removed the complainant’s name from the online article, as
a gesture of goodwill.
Relevant Code Provisions
4. Clause 3 (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.
The Public Interest
4. The Regulator will consider the extent to which
material is already in the public domain, or will become so.
Findings of the Committee
5. The Committee recognises the importance of the general
principle of open justice. Newspapers are, subject to any restriction on
reporting imposed by the Code or the law, entitled to publish material
disclosed during legal proceedings. Where such material is heard in open court
it is, in any case, already in the public domain. In this instance, whilst the
Committee understood that the complainant was upset by the article, there were
no requirements which would prevent the publication of her name. As such, there
was no breach of Clause 3. Nevertheless, the Committee welcomed the newspaper’s
decision to remove the complainant’s name from the online article.
Conclusions
6. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 08/12/2014
Date decision issued: 31/03/2015