Decision of the Complaints Committee – 02356-19, 00230-20
Sharp v dailyrecord.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Jill Sharp complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
articles headlined:
2. The first article published on 12 March 2019 reported
that a woman had pleaded guilty to stalking her former friend and her husband
by creating fake online profiles to harass the couple and cause them fear and
alarm. It gave details of the offence, but also reported that in 2017, the
newspaper had revealed that the woman had stalked a man by editing photographs
of a stranger posted on social media and using fabricated social media accounts
to falsely claim that she was in a relationship with the stranger.
3. The second article published on 19 March 2019 gave more
details of the offences to which the woman had pleaded guilty. It explained
that she had used social media accounts and email addresses which concealed her
identity to contact her former friend and her husband; posted messages on
social media relating to her former friend which contained abusive remarks; and
left voicemails for her with sectarian remarks and threats of violence. The
article repeated that the complainant had previously stalked a man in 2017 by
fabricating a relationship with him.
4. The third article published on 17 July 2019 was published
after the woman had been sentenced for the offences to which she had pleaded
guilty. It repeated the details of the woman’s conviction and said that she
carried out a “twisted campaign of hate” against her former friend and her
husband. It explained that the woman had used fake accounts to do so, for three
years. It repeated the claim from the second article regarding voicemails. The
article included a quote from the former friend who said that the woman
“…caused so much damage to [husband and former friend] over a period of years
and it affected our jobs and health”. It also reported that the former friend
considered that the woman was jealous of her. Finally, the article repeated the
points relating to the allegedly fabricated relationship which appeared in the
first and second articles.
5. The article also included some photographs of the woman,
showing her being arrested, outside court, and an image of the original article
reporting on the allegedly faked relationship.
6. The fourth article published on 18 July 2019 was an
interview with the former friend and her husband where they talked about their
experience and the effect that the woman’s behaviour had had on them. The
article explained that the friendship between the woman and her former friend
was “intense”. The couple claimed that they had had to give up their season
tickets at a football stadium and had been prescribed antidepressants as a
result of the woman’s actions. The couple were described as the woman’s
“victims” and the woman as a stalker and a fantasist. The article reported that
the couple’s lives were turned “upside down" for four years as the woman
“hounded” them in a “relentless campaign” and “vendetta”, targeting their
family lives and friendships. The article referred to a book written by the
former friend, based on her experiences. The former friend also said that she
told the woman that she was being stalked by someone, but then that the woman
had “twisted the knife” as she was the one who had been carrying out the
harassment all along. The article repeated the points made in previous articles
that the woman had used fake Facebook profiles to harass the couple, and
reported that she sent death threats and lies to the couple’s family, including
the former friend’s husband’s daughter. The article reported that as part of
this, the woman created a fake persona called “Gemma Stuart”, which the former
friend said was “threatening to do violence to us”. The former friend was
quoted as saying that the woman “…said from the start that [the woman] didn’t
think [husband] was good enough for me.” The former friend’s husband also said
that that his family members “…all got messages from [woman], trying to poison
them against me.” Finally, the article repeated the points relating to the
allegedly fabricated relationship which appeared in the previous articles.
7. The article also included photographs of the woman. It
included the same photographs as the third article, as well as photographs of
her with her former friend and her husband, a photograph of the woman on
holiday, and photographs which the article reported she had edited to claim she
was in a relationship with a stranger.
8. The fifth article published on 16 October 2019 was
published after the woman had been released from prison. It reported that she
had caused controversy by posting photographs of her drinking champagne and
celebrating after her release. The article reported that she had been ridiculed
and disowned by many fans of a football club she also supported, reporting that
other fans had made clear on Twitter that she was not welcome at supporters’
pubs and called her a “maniac”. The article reported that she had since set up
a business following her release from prison at which she was “flogging”
football merchandise. The article described her as being “notorious” and that
she had carried out a “three year hate campaign” against her former friends.
The husband of the former friend was quoted in the article as saying that “this
obsession [the woman] has with champagne is sad but we won’t be intimidated by
her” and that she was a “fantasist and a stalker”. He also said that “details
emerged in court” about the woman’s behaviour. Finally, the article repeated
the points relating to the allegedly fabricated relationship which appeared in
the previous articles.
9. The article included four photographs of the woman
drinking champagne, including one photograph posted on social media celebrating
her release from prison. In all of the photographs, the bottle of champagne was
prominently displayed. The article also included a copy of the original article
reporting of the allegedly faked relationship.
10. The sixth article published on 17 October 2019 reported
that the woman had posted on Facebook after her release from prison, claiming
that she was “the victim” in the case. It reported that the woman was jailed
for trying to ruin the lives of her former friends “by making false claims of
them being drug dealers over social media”. It went on to explain that the
woman “used fake social media accounts to spread false claims about [the
couple], telling their friends, family and employers that they were drug
dealers”. It reported that the woman had posed a “version of events that
falsely puts the blame on her victims [name and name]”. Finally, the article
repeated the points relating to the allegedly fabricated relationship which appeared
in the previous articles.
11. The article included two photographs of the woman, one
showing her drinking champagne after being released from prison, and another
showing her being arrested.
12. The seventh article published on the 21 October 2019 was
similar to the fifth article and, apart from the claim that the woman had been
ridiculed and disowned by fellow football fans, contained the same points. It
also reported that social media footage showed people queueing to enter the
business she had opened since being released from prison in “droves”. Finally,
the article repeated the points relating to the allegedly fabricated
relationship which appeared in the previous articles.
13. The article included three photographs of the woman
drinking champagne, including one photograph posted on social media celebrating
her release from prison. In all of the photographs, the bottle of champagne was
prominently displayed. It also included a photograph of the window of the
woman’s shop.
14. The eighth article published on the 21 October 2019 reported
that the woman’s former friend had written a novel “closely based on the three
year ordeal she and her husband [name] suffered”. It said that the woman had
carried out “twisted exploits”, that she was a “serial stalker”, and that she
had a “crazy double life”. It did not include any referenced to the alleged
fabricated relationship.
15. The article included a photograph of the complainant
leaving court.
16. The ninth article published on the 21 October 2019 was
very similar to the eighth article and reported the novel written by the former
friend about her experience. It reported that a former footballer had written a
foreword for this book, in which he talked about the “pain and torture” which
the couple endured. Finally, the article repeated the points relating to the
allegedly fabricated relationship which appeared in the previous articles.
17. The article also included photographs of the complainant,
showing her outside court and with her former friends.
18. The tenth article published on the 21 October 2019 was
similar to the fifth article and contained the same points. It also reported
that the woman was aged 32 and that she was a “laughing stock at Ibrox”.
19. The article included two photographs of the woman
drinking champagne following her release from prison, a photograph of her being
arrested, and a photograph of her leaving court. In the photographs which
showed her drinking champagne, the bottle of champagne was prominently
displayed.
20. The complainant said that the first article was
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to report that she had fabricated a
relationship. She said that she had not been convicted of any offence in
relation to this allegation, and had always maintained that she was the victim
of a hoax. She said that she had always strongly denied this allegation, which
the article did not make clear. She said that her denial was in the public
domain at the time of publication, via its inclusion in previous articles.
21. The complainant said that the second article was also
inaccurate. She was not convicted of any charges relating to voicemails.
However, she did provide her indictment showing that she had pleaded guilty to
having “sent abusive and threatening remarks, and that [she] left voicemails in
which [she] did utter sectarian remarks and threats of violence”. Where the
article made the same claim that she had fabricated a relationship with a
stranger, she said that it was inaccurate for the same reasons as the first
article.
22. The complainant said that the third article was
inaccurate. She said that it was not the case that she carried out a “twisted
campaign of hate”, or that she had used fake accounts to do so. However, she
did provide her indictment which showed she did “create and repeatedly use
social media accounts and email addresses which concealed [her] true identity”
and that she did “contact said [former friend and her husband] and others
connected to them using said social media accounts and email addresses which concealed
[her] true identity”. She said that she did not harass her former friend for 3
years although she did accept that the Sheriff had said that she carried out a
campaign “for more than three years” and that her indictment covered offences
from 1 January 2014 – 6 August 2017. For the reasons given for the second
article, she disputed the article’s claim about the voicemail it reported she
had left her former friends. She disputed that she was a fantasist, that her
behaviour had caused her former friends damage and affected their jobs and
health as they claimed, and their claim as well as her claim that the woman was
jealous of her. Where the article made the same claim that she had fabricated a
relationship with a stranger, she said that it was inaccurate for the same
reasons as the first article.
23. In relation to the fourth article, the complainant said
that all the claims made by her former friend and her husband were inaccurate.
She said that it was not the case that her friendship with her former friend
was “intense”. She disputed that they were her victims, that she was stalker,
or a fantasist. She said that her former friends’ lives were not turned “upside
down” for four years, but she did accept the dates set out on her indictment as
explained previously. She did not accept that she “hounded” the couple in a
“relentless campaign” or “vendetta” or targeted their family lives and
friendships, however she did accept that the terms of her indictment on this
point as set out previously. She said that it was misleading to refer to her
former friend’s book as an account of her ordeal as it was her opinion that it
was a fictional account. She disputed the quote attributed to her former friend
that she told her that she was being stalked, or that she “twisted the knife”.
She said that she did she did not create fake Facebook profiles or sent death
threats or lies to the former friend’s family, but she did accept the terms of
her indictment said that she “sent abusive and threatening remarks, and that [she]
left voicemails in which [she] did utter sectarian remarks and threats of
violence”. The complainant said she was not convicted of creating a persona
called “Gemma Stuart”. She disputed that she had ever said that the former
friend’s husband “was not good enough for her” or that the former friend’s
husband’s family “…all got messages from Sharp, trying to poison them against
me.” Where the article made the same claim that she had fabricated a
relationship with a stranger, she said that it was inaccurate for the same reasons
as the first article.
24. The complainant said that the fifth article contained a
number of inaccuracies. She said that it was not the case that she was had been
ridiculed or disowned by fellow fans of the football club she supported. She
said that it was misleading to report that she was “flogging” merchandise, as
her business was legitimate. She said that she was not “notorious” nor had she
carried out a “three year hate campaign” although she did accept the terms of
her indictment as set out previously. She said that she did not have an
obsession with champagne or that she was trying to intimidate anyone, nor that
she was a fantasist or a stalker. She also said that it was not the case that
“details emerged in court” about her behaviour – she said that very little was
said in court about her behaviour.
25. The complainant said that the sixth article was
inaccurate as although she accepted that she had been convicted for falsely
claiming that her former friend and her husband were drug dealers, she said
that she never made this claim on social media. She said that her Facebook post
was not “putting the blame” on her former friends, but explaining that her
behaviour for which she had been convicted was an act of retaliation, which she
accepted was against her former friends. She said that she had never named her
former friends in her Facebook post. Where the article made the same claim that
she had fabricated a relationship with a stranger, she said that it was
inaccurate for the same reasons as the first article.
26. Where the seventh article repeated the same points in
the fifth article, the complainant disputed it for the same reasons. She also
disputed that people had queued in “droves” to enter her shop.
27. The complainant said that the eighth article was
inaccurate because she did not accept that her former friends had suffered “a
three year ordeal” for reasons already set out above. She also disputed the
description of her as having carried out “twisted exploits”, that she was a
“serial stalker”, and that she had a “crazy double life”, which she said could
only be in reference to the allegation that she had fabricated a relationship
with a stranger.
28. The complainant said that the ninth article was
inaccurate because her former friends had not suffered “pain and torture” at
her hands. Where the article made the same claim that she had fabricated a
relationship with a stranger, she said that it was inaccurate for the same
reasons as the first article.
29. Where the tenth article repeated the same points as the
fifth article, she disputed it for the same reasons.
30. The complainant said that in relation to the third
through to tenth articles, the photographs printed in the article were used
without her permission and so their publication intruded into her privacy in
breach of Clause 2. However, she accepted that all of the images were publicly
available on social media at the time of publication, had been previously
printed, or were taken in a public place.
31. The complainant also said that the publication of the
articles represented a continuation of persistent coverage by the newspaper,
which she said was unjustified and excessive. Therefore, she said that the
publication of these articles constituted a breach of Clause 3.
32. The newspaper said that aside from the reporting of the
allegedly faked relationship, the articles did not contain any significant
inaccuracies. In addition to the details set out in the complainant’s
indictment, it pointed to a statement released by the Crown Office Procurator
Fiscal Service at the time of the complainant’s sentencing which said that:
“A 32 year old woman who created fake social media accounts
to carry out a campaign of harassment has been sentenced to 12 months in prison
and given a five year non-harassment order.
Jill Sharp, a former mental health worker from North
Lanarkshire, was sentenced at Livingston Sheriff Court today after having pled
guilty to stalking two people between January 2014 and August 2017.
Sharp, using a variety of invented names, targeted her
victims in a lengthy campaign of harassment.
The court heard that Sharp became jealous when a former
friend formed a relationship and subsequently married. Following the publication of an article in
the Daily Record, Sharp began to target the couple online using fake accounts
and taking photographs from their own accounts and posted them elsewhere in an
act of revenge as she believed the complainers were responsible for the Daily
Record articles.
Sharp also sent threatening and abusive text messages,
poison pen letters cut out of newspapers and emails to the employers of her
victims, as well as the management of their local golf club accusing them of
being drug dealers and committing sectarian offences.”
It also referred to contemporaneous notes taken by the
reporter in court, which it said reflected the comments made by the Procurator
Fiscal and had been accurately reported. The newspaper accepted that the
complainant had not been convicted of using the name “Gemma Stuart” as part of
her harassment but considered that where the complainant had been convicted of
using multiple false identities to stalk her former friends, reporting that she
had used the pseudonym “Gemma Stuart” did not give rise to any significant
inaccuracy. However, as a gesture of goodwill, the newspaper said it would be
happy to clarify that although Gemma Stuart was never traced to the
complainant, two other usernames were proven to have been used by her.
33. With regards to the references to the allegedly faked
relationship, it said that at the time that these articles were published, the
publication was confident that the article was accurate. It said that the
complainant was originally charged with offences relating to this allegation,
although they were not pursued by the Crown. In light of this development, the
newspaper accepted that the articles should be amended to reflect this. As
such, on receipt of the complaint it amended both articles to make clear that
the points relating the allegedly faked relationship were claims, and added
this wording as a footnote:
“This article has been amended to make clear that the
information relating to [name] are claims.”
In the newspaper’s first response to IPSO’s investigation,
it also offered to add this wording to the footnote:
“Prior to the trial of the defendant with charges of
harassment relating to [former friend and former friend’s husband], we are
happy to make clear that the Crown did not pursue the charges in relation to
[name]”
34. When IPSO had concluded its investigation –
approximately 6 months after it had began – the newspaper made a further offer
to add the complainant’s denial of the allegation to the proposed footnote. It
said that it intended to make this offer during the IPSO investigation, but due
to the large volume of complaints and subsequent correspondence, it had failed
to notice that it had not done so. It noted that their complaints handling
department responded to other complaints made by the complainant on the same
point against different titles in its publishing group – the complaints
department had offered to put the complainant’s denial on record for all of the
other titles in its publishing group and so it was clear that a failure to do
so here was an error rather than a deliberate decision. It noted that the
newspaper had never said it was not willing to put the complainant’s denial on
the record, but that the complainant had previously rejected offers made by
other newspapers to put her denial on the record.
35. The newspaper did not accept that the articles breached
Clause 2. It said that all of the photographs had been taken from either the
complainant or her partner’s open social media profiles. It said that in
relation to the photographs showing the complainant outside of court or being
arrested, the complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy
because they had been taken in public places and did not reveal any private
information about her.
36. In relation to Clause 3, it said that the frequency that
articles were published did not engage the terms of Clause 3.
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 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. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
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.
Findings of the Committee
37. In relation to the allegedly fabricated relationship
which was referenced in all articles aside from the eighth article, this was
reported as fact and the articles did not report that the complainant denied
the allegation. Presenting this allegation as fact, despite the existence of
the complainant’s denial which was in the public domain at the time of
publication, constituted a failure to distinguish between comment, conjecture
and fact, and there was a breach of Clause 1(iv). Where the articles were significantly
misleading as to the status of these serious allegations, under Clause 1(ii)
there was a requirement to put on record that these claims were allegations
disputed by the complainant.
38. On receipt of the complaint, the newspaper had amended
the article to make clear that the points relating to the allegedly faked
relationship were claims, rather than statements of fact. It also added a
footnote to the articles to record that this change had been made. In the first
response to IPSO’s investigation, it offered to add to the footnote that the
charges relating to this allegation were not pursued by the Crown. The
newspaper then offered to put the complainant’s denial on record, as a footnote
to the online article. This wording was sufficiently prominent and it made
clear the complainant’s position and the status of the claims, as required
under Clause 1(ii). However, the Committee had regard to Clause 1(ii)’s
requirement that a significant inaccuracy be corrected promptly. The offer to
put the complainant’s denial on record – which was contingent to satisfy Clause
1(ii) – had been made more than six months after IPSO began its investigation.
Generally, this delay would mean that the offer would not be considered
sufficiently prompt. However, the Committee recognised the exceptionally large
number of complaints against a number of titles in the publishing group and the
very high volume of correspondence involved in this case, and accepted the
newspaper’s position that its failure to offer to put the complainant’s denial
on record – as the publishing group’s complaints department had done for all
the other complaints on this subject – was an error rather than an editorial
decision. in these particular circumstances the Committee did not consider that
the publication’s actions constituted a breach of breach of Clause 1(ii).
39. With regard to the remaining points raised by the
complainant under Clause 1, the Committee did not find that they raised any
significant inaccuracies. With regards to the second and third articles, it was
clear from the complainant’s indictment that she had pleaded guilty to leaving
abusive voicemails. Similarly, it was not inaccurate for the third article to
report that she had carried out a “campaign of hate” over three years when her
indictment showed she had been convicted of harassment offences between 2014
and 2017. Where the complainant had been convicted of stalking offences and was
found to have created fake online profiles in order to do this, it was not
significantly misleading to describe her as a “fantasist” and that she had used
fake accounts. The claim in the third article that she had caused her former
friends damage and had affected their health was attributed to them, and they
were entitled to speak of their experience. There was no breach of Clause 1(iv)
in distinguishing their comment from fact. The complainant was not in a
position to dispute their experience, and reporting their comments did not give
rise to any significant inaccuracy regarding the complainant’s conviction. In
respect of the claim that the complainant had been jealous of her former
friend’s engagement – it was partly attributed to her former friend and her
husband, who said it was their belief that this was the case. The Committee
also had regard to the statement from the COPFS, which said that this narrative
had been heard by the court. Where this was clearly speculation, attributed to
a person rather than adopted as part of the court’s findings, there was no
failure to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact, and was not
significantly misleading as to charges to which the complainant had pleaded
guilty. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points in the second and third
articles.
40. In regards to the fourth article, where it was accepted
that the complainant had previously been
close friends with her former friend and her husband, describing this
friendship as “intense” was not significantly misleading as to the facts of the
case such as to require correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii). It was not
misleading to describe her as a “fantasist” for the reasons set out above, and
where she had been convicted of stalking offences, not inaccurate to describe
her as a “stalker”. The Committee considered that where the complainant’s
indictment showed she had been convicted for offences ranging over three and
half years, any inaccuracy arising from reporting that she had turned her
former friends’ lives “upside down” was not significantly misleading to the
scale and nature of her conviction. Having regard to the details of the
offences set out in the complainant’s indictment – including that she “sent
abusive and threatening remarks, and that [she] left voicemails in which [she]
did utter sectarian remarks and threats of violence”, it was not inaccurate to
report that the complainant “hounded” the couple in a “relentless campaign” or
“vendetta” or targeted their family lives of friendships. For this reason, and
specifically with regard to the indictment’s reference to threats of violence,
there was no significant inaccuracy in reporting that she sent her former
friend and her husband death threats. There was no claim in the article that
the former friend’s book was factual – only that it was based on her
experience, which was not in dispute. Reporting that the complainant had used
the name “Gemma Stuart”, when in fact she had been convicted of using different
names, was not significantly misleading as to the nature of her conviction as
to require correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii). The claim that the
complainant had ever said that the former friend’s husband “was not good enough
for her” was attributed to the former friend, and for the reasons given above
regarding the claim that the complainant was jealous of the relationship, did
not give rise to any significant inaccuracy. Similarly, where the complainant’s
indictment said that she contacted people “connected” with her former friends,
reporting that she had targeted her former friend’s husband’s family was not
significantly misleading as to her conviction. There was no breach of Clause 1
on these points in the fourth article.
41. In regards to the fifth article, the basis to say that
the complainant had been ridiculed and disowned by fellow football fans was set
out in the article by including tweets calling her a “maniac” and saying she
was not welcome at a pub popular with other fans. The complainant disagreed
with this claim, but she did not dispute that the comments had been reported
accurately. For this reason, the Committee did not find that this claim raised
any significant inaccuracies requiring correction under the terms of Clause
1(ii). The Committee considered that “flogging” was in this case a synonym for
“selling” merchandise, which the complainant was doing at her business.
Although the complainant found this description unfair, it was not an
inaccurate. Similarly, where the complainant had been discussed on social media
and in the press with regards to her conviction and subsequent behaviour, it
was not inaccurate to describe her as “notorious”. For the reasons set out
previously, it was not inaccurate to report that she had carried out a “three
year hate campaign” or to describe her as a “fantasist” or a “stalker”.
Finally, the claims that the complainant had an “obsession with champagne”,
“that we won’t be intimidated by her”, and that “details emerged in court about
her behaviour” was attributed to the husband of the former friend. There was no
failure to take care to distinguish his comment from fact. Although the
complainant disputed she had an “obsession with champagne”, the basis for this
was set out in the article – she had celebrated her release from prison by
posting pictures on social media of her drinking champagne, with the bottle
prominently displayed. Furthermore, as reported in the article, the complainant
had previously posted photographs of her drinking champagne, each with the
champagne a focus of the photograph. The Committee could not find that this
comment – clearly presented as the former friend’s husband’s own
characterisation – as representing a significant inaccuracy requiring
correction. Where her case had been heard in court, it was not inaccurate to
report that “details emerged in court” about her behaviour. For all of these
reasons, these points did not raise any breach of Clause 1 in the fifth
article.
42. With regards to the sixth article, where the complainant
had been convicted of using social media to harass her former friends, and
separately had falsely claimed that they were drug dealers, it was not
significantly misleading to report that she had made this claim on social media
– although the Committee accepted the complainant’s position that this was not
the case. Where the complainant had sought via a social media post to justify
her behaviour as an act of retaliation – which she accepted referred to her
former friends – it was not misleading to characterise this as trying to “put
the blame” on them for her behaviour. These points did not raise any breach of
Clause 1 in the sixth article.
43. Where the seventh article repeated the same points as
the fifth article, these points did not breach Clause 1 for the same reasons as
given above. Whether customers queued in “droves” to enter the complainant’s
shop was not significantly misleading to the overall article.
44. Where the eighth article reported that the complainant
had carried out a “three year ordeal”, this was not inaccurate for the same
reasons set out above. It was not inaccurate to report that the
complainant had carried out twisted
exploits”, that she was a “serial stalker”, and that she had a “crazy double
life”. Although these were the newspaper’s interpretation of the actions for
which she was convicted, rather than a reflection of the language used in the
indictments, the Committee did not consider they were a misleading rendering of
the charges. Where the complainant had used multiple identities as part of her
campaign of harassment, the Committee considered that these descriptions did
not exclusively refer to her alleged fabrication of a relationship as she
suggested. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points, and where the
article did not include any reference to the allegedly fabricated relationship,
no significant inaccuracy requiring correction.
45. The ninth article was reporting comments made by a
former footballer about the case. It had taken care to distinguish his comment
that the former friends have suffered “pain and torture” at the hands of the
complainant from fact and so there was no breach of Clause 1(iv). The
complainant was not in a position to dispute the couple’s views of her
behaviour of the effect it had had on them. As such, there was no significant
inaccuracy in reporting this comment such as to require correction. Where the
tenth article repeated the same points as the fifth article, those points were
not inaccurate for the same reasons as given above. There was no breach of
Clause 1 in relation to these points in the nineth and tenth articles.
46. With regards to the photographs which appeared in all
the articles, the complainant accepted that they were publicly available on
social media at the time of publication, had been taken in public places, or
were already in the public domain after having been published in previous
articles. For these reasons, the complainant did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy over these photographs and their publication did not
represent an intrusion into her privacy. There was no breach of Clause 2.
47. The terms of Clause 3 are generally interpreted to apply
to the conduct of journalists during the newsgathering process. The concern
that the newspaper had printed an article which was unnecessary did not engage
the terms of Clause 3.
Conclusions
48. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1(iv).
Remedial Action Required
49. The action which the newspaper had offered was
sufficiently prompt and prominent, and made clear the status of the claims.
This was sufficient to comply with the terms of Clause 1(ii), and should now be
printed.
Date complaint received: 12/03/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/01/2021
Back to ruling listingThe 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.
