Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02303-22 A woman v gloucestershirelive.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. A
woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
gloucestershirelive.co.uk (Reach PLC) breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Cheltenham parents sentenced
after baby suffers injuries requiring force 'similar to a car crash'”,
published on 31 March 2022.
2. The
online-only article reported on the sentencing of Cheltenham parents whose
three-week-old baby had received a number of injuries, including a fractured
collarbone, broken ankle, and broken ribs. The sub-headline of the article
stated that the child’s“[m]um scour[ed] internet for excuses for brutal
injuries to her three-week-old baby”. The article went on to state that “[t]he
pair were even found to have searched online for excuses to explain their
child's injuries to doctors”. The article reported that it was heard in court
that the baby’s injuries had come to light “when the parents visited their GP”
and that the child “showed signs of being in severe pain because their ankle
was hurting”. It went on to state that “[t]he father and mother suggested to
the doctor that their other child, a toddler 18 months old, had kicked out at
the baby”. The article reported that “Sarah Jenkins, for the mother, said: ‘Her
approach was cowardly. She searched the internet to find ways to cover up their
offending.’ The judge interjected: ‘She knew her baby had been injured and was
engineering excuses’”.
3. The
complainant, the mother referred to in the article, said that the article was
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it had not been heard in court that she had
“scour[ed] [the] internet for excuses for brutal injuries to her three-week-old
baby”. She said that her ex-partner had confirmed that he had searched the
internet for what happens to child abusers, but that it had not been heard that
she had searched the internet for excuses for the injuries. The complainant
provided the court transcript, which she said supported her position that this
had not been heard in court.
4. The
complainant said that the article also inaccurately stated that her barrister
had said “’Her approach was cowardly. She searched the internet to find ways to
cover up their offending’”; she said that her barrister had not said this in
court and said that her barrister was there to support her, rather than
criticise her.
5. The
complainant also said that the article was inaccurate to state that “[t]he jury
was told that the baby’s injuries came to light on July 11, 2019, when the
parents visited their GP. The child showed signs of being in severe pain
because their ankle was hurting. The father and mother suggested to the doctor
that their other child, a toddler 18 months old, had kicked out at the baby”.
She said that she had taken her child to the doctor on her own, not with her
ex-partner, and that she had told the doctors what her ex-partner had said to
her in regard to the claim that their other child had kicked the baby. She
added that her child had not shown signs of being in severe pain, and that the
doctors’ reports stated that her child would not have been showing signs of
certain injuries.
6. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. In relation to the claims that
the complainant had searched the internet for excuses for the injuries
sustained by the baby, it said that it could be seen in the Judge’s sentencing
remarks, which said: “Searches were also found on both defendants’ mobile
telephones regarding the sentences for child abuse. These searches show
knowledge” and that “[w]hen examining the search history on ADL/1 [one of the
defendant’s devices], a search is carried out dated 23rd July 2019 […] asks:
‘what's the maximum sentence for child abuse’”. In addition to providing the
Judge’s sentencing remarks, the publication provided the reporter’s
contemporaneous notes from court. It said that the reporter’s notes showed that
the Judge had said “They made searches on the internet and that shows
knowledge. This was ducking and diving as she knew her baby had been injured as
[sic] were engineering to find excuses for their actions” and that it had been
heard in court that the complainant “felt pressured by this and accepts there
was neglect on her part. She and her partner engineered explanations to find
excuses”.
7. Once
the publication had seen the court transcript provided by the complainant, it
said that this showed the Judge had said that the complainant, “along with [her
ex-partner], engineered explanations like the [other child] treading on it on
the sofa or something, ridiculous stuff like that”; that “the efforts to
explain the injuries was beginning to fail and the suggestion of an accident on
the sofa was perhaps not going to work”; “[a]nd those, those trips to the
doctor, the lies, the research on the internet, that shows knowledge, not sort
of ducking and diving. She showed knowledge.” The publication also added that
the sentencing remarks showed the Judge stating that “...his mishandling was
known to you and yet you participate in lying to medical professionals and
making enquiries of the internet about abuse which reveals awareness and
knowledge of the harm by you”. The publication said that it was satisfied that
the article accurately represented the Judge’s comments. It also went on to
state that when comparing the reporter’s transcript to the court transcript,
the reporter’s notes appeared to have transcribed “engineering explanations” as
“engineering to find excuses”, but it did not consider this was a significant
difference.
8. While
the publication did not consider there had been a breach of Clause 1 regarding
this point, towards the end of IPSO’s investigation, it offered to amend the
sub-headline to remove the reference to “scours internet for excuses for brutal
injuries” and amend the sentence to state, “scours the internet for the
punishment for child abuse”. In addition to this, the publication offered to
publish the following clarification as a footnote to the article:
A
previous version of this article referred to the defendants as 'scouring the
internet for excuses' to explain the injuries to the child. Although the judge
made explicit reference to both defendants 'engineering excuses', one of the
defendants has asked us to clarify that she searched the internet to check
“what happens to child abusers” and “how long do you get for child abuse”. We
are happy to clarify this.
9. In
relation to the claim that the complainant’s barrister had said “’[h]er
approach was cowardly. She searched the internet to find ways to cover up their
offending’”, the publication said that the reporter’s notes showed the
barrister had said that “[the complainant] has not changed her account
significantly, but has come to recognise some of her failings. She has not
underplayed her responsibilities, but her approach was cowardly. She is however
remorseful”, whereas the transcript appeared to show the barrister being cut
off and did not include her full comment. The publication added that it was
satisfied that the reporter’s notes showed that both the Judge and the
complainant’s barrister had referred to the complainant as “cowardly”, and
noted that in any event, the court transcript showed that the Judge had
described the complainant as “cowardly” on two occasions. During the
investigation, the publication removed the disputed quote from the article as a
gesture of goodwill; it said that, while the reporter’s notes supported this
comment, the comment did not appear in the court transcript.
10. In
relation to whether both parents had been at the doctors or not, the
publication said that the Judge’s sentencing remarks stated: “At that
appointment you both repeated that clearly untrue explanation to the nurse that
[the child] had kicked out at [the baby’s] leg accidentally” and that “[the
baby had] not [been] kicked as the parents asserted to doctors”. The
publication added that in relation to whether or not the child was in pain, the
Judge’s sentencing remarks said that the child was taken to the doctors as the
ankle was swollen and the child was “warm and unsettled”, and that they had
been “unwell the night before”. It added that in the transcript provided by the
complainant, the complainant’s solicitor had quoted the complainant as having
said “I’ve let her down. The pain she must have gone through is horrific.”
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.
Findings
of the Committee
11. The
Committee first considered the complainant’s concerns that the article had
inaccurately stated that she had “scour[ed] [the] internet for excuses for
brutal injuries to her three-week-old baby”; that “[t]he pair were even found
to have searched online for excuses to explain their child's injuries to
doctors”; and that the complainant’s barrister had said that “[s]he searched
the internet to find ways to cover up their offending”. The transcribed notes
of the reporter referenced searches on the internet that the court had heard
had been made by the parents and that they “…were engineering to find excuses
for their actions”. The Committee noted that the Judge, in his written
sentencing remarks, said “…I have little doubt that there was an effort by both
defendants to purposely hide the cause of the injuries” and that at an
appointment with the paediatric team at the Gloucester Royal hospital “…you
both repeated that untrue explanation to the nurse…”. In the transcript of the
sentencing hearing, the Judge also remarked that “…she [the complainant], along
with [the other parent] engineered explanations…” as to the cause of the
injuries. The written sentencing remarks of the Judge also recorded that
searches had been found on both parents’ mobile phones regarding the sentences
imposed for child abuse. The Committee took into account the transcribed notes
taken by the reporter, the transcript of the sentencing hearing and the Judge’s
written sentencing remarks. The article reflected the reporter’s transcribed
notes and there was no failure to take care over the report. The sentencing
remarks of the Judge demonstrated that he had concluded that both parents had
provided untrue and engineered explanations as to the cause of the injuries
sustained by the child, and that internet searches had been made on both of
their phones about child abuse. In those circumstances, it was the Committee’s
view that it was not significantly inaccurate or misleading to report that the
complainant had “scour[ed] [the] internet for excuses for brutal injuries to
her three-week-old baby”, that “[t]he pair were even found to have searched
online for excuses to explain their child's injuries to doctors” or that the
complainant’s barrister was reported to have said that “[s]he searched the
internet to find ways to cover up their offending”. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on this point.
12. In
relation to the report that the complainant’s barrister had said at the hearing
“’[h]er approach was cowardly’”, the publication said that the reporter’s notes
recorded that this had been said by the complainant’s barrister. However, it
accepted that this did not appear in the transcript of the sentencing hearing,
and so the publication removed the disputed quote from the article as a gesture
of goodwill. In light of the publication’s position that the article reflected
the notes taken by the reporter at the hearing, the Committee found that it had
taken care over the report on this point and there was no breach of Clause 1
(i). The Committee considered whether a correction was required given that the
transcript of the sentencing hearing indicated that the complainant’s Counsel
had not said this at the hearing, but that the complainant’s actions had been
described as “cowardly” by the Judge. The Committee noted that article, which
accurately reported the complainant’s conviction, focussed on the sentences
imposed on the complainant and the other parent and the remarks which had been
made by the Judge at the hearing. On balance, and taking into account the
article as a whole, the Committee did not establish that this point constituted
a significant inaccuracy requiring correction under Clause 1(ii). The Committee
nevertheless welcomed the publication’s amendment of the article.
13. The
Committee next considered the accuracy of the report that “the parents visited
their GP” and that the child had “showed signs of being in severe pain because
their ankle was hurting”. The sentencing remarks confirmed that both parents
had attended an appointment at the Gloucester Royal Hospital. Whether the
doctor was a GP or a clinician at a hospital was not significant. The Committee
further noted that the Judge found that the child had sustained a set of
significant injuries including broken ribs and a fractured collarbone. In light
of these injuries, the Committee considered that any inaccuracy regarding the
severity of injury to the ankle was not significant. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on either of these points.
Conclusion(s)
14. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
15. N/A
Date
complaint received: 04/04/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/11/2022
Back to ruling listing