Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02387-22 Williams v The Sun
Summary
of Complaint
1. Llinos
Williams, acting on behalf of herself and her daughter Rebeca Williams,
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in articles headlined:
-
“TEACHER SEX Teaching assistant, 21, who had sex with schoolboy, 15, twice
after telling him ‘age is just a number’ is spared jail”, published on 28 March
2022
- “TEACHER’S
SHAME Teacher, 21, who had sex with schoolboy, 15, after telling him ‘age’s
just a number’ now ‘bitterly regrets’ seducing him”, published on 6 April 2022
- “Teacher
had sex with boy aged 15”, published on 7 April 2022
2. The
online article headlined “TEACHER SEX” reported that Rebeca Williams – aged 21
– had admitted “two offences of sexual activity with a boy of 15 and abusing a
position of trust”. It reported that the court heard that the woman had sent
“flirty” text messages to the teenager before “taking him to her home” address
and having sex. It then reported that the woman had asked to meet up again with
the pupil, “taking him upstairs for a second encounter, before she pressured
the teenager for a more intense relationship”. It then explained that the
victim “blocked her on messaging apps” after rumours started to circulate at
the school. It reported that the court heard “several of the messages must have
been exchanged on school grounds”, with the judge saying that the woman had
“groomed” her victim and that sending messages on school grounds was an
aggravating feature.
3.The
second online article headlined “TEACHER’S SHAME” reported that Rebeca Williams
– 21 – had “since told friends” that she “bitterly regrets” her actions. The
article described the woman as a “Predator” and reported that “[o]ne close
friend, who asked not be to identified”, said: “Becky knows what she did was
wrong and bitterly regrets what happened now”. The source also said that the
woman had “paid a high price for her mistake”; was “truly sorry what she did”;
had “suffered very badly with depression as a result of losing her career and
the court case”; and now wanted “to try and rebuild her life”. It also reported
that at the sentencing, the judge had told the court that she had “groomed” her
victim and sending messages on school grounds was an aggravating feature.
4. The
second article was accompanied by two images of the woman, captioned “Former
teacher Rebecca [sic] Williams is said to be ‘truly sorry’ after joining the
sex offenders list for sleeping with a 15-year-old schoolboy and abusing a
position of trust” and “Convicted sex offender Williams has since told friends
in her home town she ‘regrets’ her actions”
5. The
third article, which appeared in print, headlined “Teacher had sex with boy
aged 15”, reported on the sentencing of Rebeca Williams. It reported that a
court heard that a “teacher told a boy of 15 that ’age is just a number’ before
having sex with him twice, with the woman admitting to two offences of sexual
activity and abusing a position of trust”. It reported that the woman received
a “12-months’ suspended jail sentence and a ban from working with kids”, and
“bitterly regrets her actions”. The third article was accompanied by an image
of the woman, with the caption describing her as a “Predator”.
6. The
complainant said that the first article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1,
to report her daughter’s present age. She said that her daughter was younger at
the time of the offence, although she accepted that her daughter was an adult.
She also said the article was inaccurate to describe her daughter as a
“teacher”; she had been a “teaching assistant”. She also denied that the judge
had told her daughter that she had "groomed" her victim; instead, the
judge had said that “this was not your normal kind of grooming”, with the
article taking the judge’s comments out of context. She also denied that the
court heard her daughter had “pressured the teenager for a more intense
relationship”.
7. The
complainant also said that the second article breached Clause 1. She said that
it included some of the same inaccuracies as the previous article: reporting
her daughter’s current age, referring to her as a “teacher” and reporting that
she had “pressured the teenager for a more intense relationship”. She also
denied that she had been described as a “Predator” during proceedings. Further,
the complainant said the quotes attributed to her daughter’s “friend” had been
fabricated. Her daughter denied that she had confided in friends; she had only
discussed the matter with her immediate family and did not have any close
friends locally. The complainant also noted that the “friend” had described her
daughter as “Becky”; her daughter did not call herself “Becky” and was instead
known as “Beca” by friends.
8. The
complainant said the third article headlined “Teacher had sex with boy aged 15”
also breached Clause 1. She said that where it reported her daughter’s age and
her former job title in the same terms as the first and second article, it was
inaccurate for the same reasons. Further, she said that the article was
inaccurate to describe her daughter as a “Predator”.
9. The
complainant also said that the second article, headlined “TEACHER’S SHAME”,
breached Clause 2, as it published photographs taken from her daughter’s
private social media account without consent or permission.
10. The
complainant also said that she and her daughter had received multiple unwanted
approaches from journalists at their home, in breach of Clause 3. She said that
two individuals had approached the family house on 29 March 2022, before she
asked them to leave. She said that one of these individuals had claimed to be a
courier delivering court documents and had presented her with a “calling card”.
She said that she had shown this card to a police officer, who said that it was
a journalist pretending to be a courier. She said that the other individual had
parked nearby her home, taking photographs and had been “aggressive” when she
requested that they leave. She also said that the police had completed “a
trace” on the vehicle’s registration number and confirmed that this individual
was a journalist.
11. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said that the
three articles had been provided by a news agency and published in good faith.
It did not accept that the articles were inaccurate to describe the
complainant’s daughter as a “teacher”; she had worked as a “teaching assistant”
and the difference between these two roles was not significant in terms of the
level of trust and responsibility held. She had abused that position when she
had been found guilty of sexual offences with a minor in her charge.
12.
Notwithstanding this, at the start of IPSO’s investigation into the matter, in
a gesture of goodwill, the publication offered to amend the online articles and
to publish the following footnote clarification:
“Rebeca
Williams was a teaching assistant at the time she committed the reported
offences, not a teacher as the article originally stated. It has been amended”.
13. It
also offered to publish the following item in its established Corrections and
Clarification’s column, on page 2 of the newspaper:
“Rebeca
Williams was in fact a teaching assistant, not a teacher, when she committed
offences of sexual activity with a boy of 15 and abusing a position of trust,
as reported in our 7 April article.”
14.
Further, the publication did not accept that its use of the term “predator” was
inaccurate or misleading; this was clearly the publication’s characterisation
of her daughter. However, it offered, at the start of IPSO’s investigation, in
a gesture of goodwill and in order to resolve the complaint, to remove this
particular characterisation from the second online article, headlined
“TEACHER’S SHAME”.
15. In
relation to the complainant’s concerns about her daughter’s reported age in all
three articles, the publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said
that the court heard her daughter was “21”, and she had been younger – though
still an adult – when she had committed the offences in question, and provided
a copy of the reporter’s contemporaneous notes in order to demonstrate this;
this was a different age to that provided by the complainant. It also said that
the difference between the ages was inconsequential: her daughter had legally
been an adult and in a position of power when she committed the offences
against the child.
16. Nor
did the publication accept that the first and second articles were inaccurate
or misleading to report that the judge said her daughter had “groomed” her
victim. The reporter’s notes showed that the judge had told the court there was
“clear grooming behaviour. [The victim] was 15, you were [an adult]”, and had
repeated this particular remark on her behaviour in the sentencing. While the
complainant’s counsel argued, during proceedings, that this was not a “classic”
case of grooming, the publication noted that the complainant’s daughter’s abuse
of her position of trust at the school had formed part of the case against her.
17.
Further, the publication did not accept that the first and second articles were
inaccurate to report that her daughter had “pressured the teenager for a more
intense relationship”. The prosecutor had told the court that her daughter had
“wanted more of a relationship”, and the victim had subsequently “blocked” her
on various messaging apps.
18. In
addition, the publication said the second article was an accurate report of the
interview with a confidential source, who had identified themselves as a family
friend, and shared a redacted version of the reporter’s shorthand notes to
substantiate this. Nor did the publication consider that the complainant was in
a position to dispute these claims, and her position was based on conjecture
only. It noted, in any case, that her daughter’s position was not strongly at
odds with the comments made by the source.
19. In
relation to Clause 2, the publication did not accept that the complainant had a
reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the photographs published in
the second article. The two images were publicly viewable on her Twitter page,
appearing as her profile picture and banner, respectively.
20. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 3. It did not know anything about
a “courier” or “transit van” driver; however, it said that a local photographer
had been assigned by the publication to visit the family home on 29 March 2022.
This photographer knocked on the front door of the property on two occasions
that day; however, the door was not answered, and they did not encounter or
speak to the complainant or her daughter. The publication also said that
another reporter had attempted to speak with the complainant on 5 April 2022 at
a location where they believed she worked. At the entrance of this location,
the reporter had been approached by an unnamed individual and asked whether
they were a journalist. Upon confirming this, the individual asked the reporter
to leave the premise and not to return. The publication said that the reporter
immediately left, and did not return, assuming that this individual was the
complainant. The publication did not accept that either of these instances, in
which reporters working for it, had attempted to contact the complainant and
her daughter constituted harassment under the Editors’ Code.
21.
During IPSO’s investigation, the complainant confirmed that she had not worked
at this location since 2020 and had not encountered or engaged with the
reporter on 5 April 2022.
Relevant
Clause 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 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
22. The
complainant said that the three articles misrepresented her daughter’s position
within the school; she had not been a “teacher”, but rather a “teaching
assistant”. The Committee accepted the two roles had different job titles and
responsibilities and noted that the articles were reports of the offences for
which her daughter had been convicted. It was not in dispute that, similar to a
teacher, her daughter’s role meant that she held a position of trust towards
the children who attended the school where she worked and that this was a
feature of the offences. Taken in this context, the Committee did not consider
that the description of the complainant’s daughter as a “teacher”, rather than
a “teaching assistant”, rendered the articles significantly inaccurate or
misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point. Nonetheless, the
Committee welcomed the publication’s offer to publish a clarification – online
and in print – to address this.
23. The
Committee next considered whether the three articles were inaccurate or
misleading in reporting the complainant’s daughter’s current age, rather than
her age when the offences were committed. Whilst there was a dispute between
the parties as to the daughter’s age when she committed the offences, the
Committee did not consider her exact age to be material – the nature of the
complainant’s offences had been accurately reported, namely that she had been
an adult who held a position of trust when the offences had been committed.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
24. The
complainant denied that the judge had said that her daughter had “groomed” the
victim and said that the first and second articles had taken the comments made
by the judge out of context. The publication produced the reporter’s
contemporaneous notes of the court proceedings, which recorded that the judge
has said: there was “clear grooming behaviour. [The victim] was 15, you were
[an adult]”. Given that the article reflected the reporter’s notes, there was
no failure to take care over the reporting of the judge’s remarks. The
complainant accepted that the judge had referred to her daughter’s conduct as
“not your normal kind of grooming”; the omission of the judge’s full remark did
not render the article inaccurate, and no correction was required. There was no
breach of Clause 1.
25.
Although the complainant disputed that her daughter was a “predator”, the basis
for this characterisation was set out in the first and second articles – her
daughter had abused a position of trust and had admitted to and been convicted
of two offences of sexual activity with a child. The Committee did not find
that this characterisation – clearly presented as that of the publication
rather than a description heard during the court proceedings – represented an
inaccuracy. There was no breach of Clause 1.
26. The
Committee then considered whether the first article and second article were
inaccurate to report that the court heard that the complainant’s daughter had
“pressured the teenager for a more intense relationship”. In circumstances
where the prosecutor had told the court that her daughter had “wanted more of a
relationship” with the victim and that he had then “blocked” her daughter on
messaging apps, the Committee did not consider that this statement represented
a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, or a significant
inaccuracy. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
27. With
regards to the claim in the second article that the complainant’s daughter
“bitterly regretted” her actions, the article made clear the status of this
allegation: it was presented as comment, rather than a statement of fact, and
the comment was clearly attributed to a source, albeit an anonymous one.
Although the complainant claimed the comments attributed to the anonymous
source had been fabricated, the publication provided the reporter’s notes to
support its position that the comments were genuine. Where the complainant’s
position was conjecture and the publication had been able to provide
contemporaneous notes to support its position, the Committee did not find that
there was any failure to take care over the article by reporting this claim.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
28. The
Committee next considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2 in relation
to the second article. The Committee noted that the images of the complainant’s
daughter, which showed only her likeness, had been publicly available on her
Twitter page at the time of publication of the article. For this reason, the
complainant’s daughter did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in
respect of the information contained in the photographs and their publication
did not represent an intrusion into her private life. There was no breach of
Clause 2.
29. The
Committee then considered the concerns raised under Clause 3. The Committee’s
task was to establish whether the newspaper under complaint had been
responsible for the harassment, for example if the harassment had been carried
out by a member of its staff or by an external contributor which it had engaged,
such as an agency reporter or photographer. The Committee noted there was a
dispute between the complainant and the publication as to the extent of contact
between the parties over the relevant period. The complainant had not provided
any information which suggested that the individuals who had spoken with her at
her home on 29 March 2022 represented the publication or had identified
themselves as representing the publication. The publication had denied that
these individuals represented them. There were, therefore, no grounds to find
that the individuals in question had represented the publication. Further, the
publication had provided details of approaches which it accepted had been made
on its behalf, neither of which appeared to contravene the terms of the Code.
There was no breach of Clause 3.
Conclusion(s)
30. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
31. N/A
Date
complaint received: 01/04/22
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/12/22
Back to ruling listing