Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02390-22 Williams v dailystar.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Llinos
Williams, acting on behalf of herself and her daughter Rebeca Williams,
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailystar.co.uk
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in the following articles:
· An
article headlined "Teaching assistant told boy, 15, 'age is just a number'
before having sex with him twice", published on 29 March 2022.
· An
article headlined “Teacher, 21, who seduced schoolboy, 15, says she 'bitterly
regrets' sleeping with him", published on 6 April 2022.
2. The
first article reported that Rebeca Williams had admitted to and was convicted
of “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 exchanged “flirty” text
messages with the boy before she took him back to her home address and had sex
with him. It then reported that the woman had asked to meet up with the boy
again and taken him to her bedroom for a second encounter. It explained that
the victim had “blocked” the woman on messaging apps after she wanted more of a
relationship.
3. The
second article reported that Rebeca Williams – 21 – had since told friends that
she “bitterly regrets” her actions. It included comments provided by two
unnamed individuals to separate publications. The article reported that the
woman, who had “ groomed a 15-year-old schoolboy to have sex with her twice”,
was convicted of “two offences of sexual activity with a boy of 15 and abusing
a position of trust.” It went on to say that “one close friend, who has not
been identified, told” a separate publication: “Becky knows what she did was
wrong and she bitterly regrets what happened now. She wishes she could turn the
clock back but she knows she can’t. She is truly sorry for what she did. She
has suffered very badly with depression as a result of losing her career and
the court case. She has paid a high price for her mistake”.
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 register” and “William's friends claim she regrets grooming the
teenager”.
5. The
complainant said that the two articles were inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1,
to report her daughter’s current age. She said that her daughter was younger
when the offences were committed, although she accepted that her daughter was
an adult. Further, she said that the articles were inaccurate to describe her
daughter as a “predator” and to use “rape” and “sexual abuse” as these specific
terms were not used in court.
6. The
complainant also said that the second article was inaccurate to describe her
daughter as a “teacher”; she had been a “teaching assistant”. Further, she said
that the quotes attributed to her daughter’s friends in this article 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 one of the “friends” had
described her daughter as “Becky”; her daughter did not call herself “Becky”
and was instead known as “Beca” by friends.
7. The
complainant also said that the second article, headlined “Teacher, 21, who
seduced schoolboy, 15, says she 'bitterly regrets' sleeping with him”, breached
Clause 2, as it published photographs taken from her daughter’s private social
media account without consent or permission.
8. 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.
9. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said the articles
were an accurate and fair summary of court proceedings against the complainant’s
daughter. It said that the court heard the age her daughter was when she had
committed the offences in question and provided a copy of the reporter’s
contemporaneous notes to demonstrate this; this was a different age to that
provided by the complainant. It also said that her specific age was
insignificant: her daughter had legally been an adult when she committed the
offences against the child. Further, it said that the year of the offences was
omitted in order to minimise the risk of the victim being identified.
10.
Notwithstanding this, upon receipt of a direct complaint from the complainant
on 7 April 2022, in a gesture of goodwill, the publication had amended the
online articles to reflect the age provided by the complainant.
11. The
publication did not accept that the disputed terms “predator”, “rape” and
“sexual abuse” had appeared in any form of the online articles in question.
12. In
addition, the publication did not accept that the second article was 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: her daughter had held a position of trust and responsibility at
the school and had abused that position when she had been found guilty of
sexual offences with a minor in her charge. Further, the publication said that
the article was an accurate report of the comments made by sources to separate
publications.
13. 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. It said that the images had been taken from a report by a
separate publication and thereby already in the public domain at the time of
publication. Further, it said that the images were still publicly available on
the woman’s social media accounts – a point the complainant disputed, who said
that at the time of the article’s publication the social media account had been
deactivated. The Committee noted that these photographs were removed from the
second article, with the remaining image –
which showed the exterior of the court –
captioned: “The teacher admitted to two offences at Mold Crown Court”.
14. In
relation to Clause 3, the publication did not accept that complainant’s
allegations related to any of its journalists or individuals working on its
behalf.
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 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
15. The
Committee first considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 1. The
Committee considered whether the first article was 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. While the
Committee did not find a breach of the Editors’ Code, it welcomed the steps
taken by the publication to address the complainant’s concerns on this point.
16. The
Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns in relation to the
following terms which the complainant claimed appeared in the online articles:
predator, rape and sexual abuse. The Committee reviewed the articles and could
not identify any usage of those words. As such, there were no grounds for
investigation on this point.
17. The
complainant said that the second article 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.
18. In
relation to the allegedly fabricated quotes which were referenced in the second
article, the Committee noted that the complainant had not identified any particular
inaccuracies within the quotes, rather they had questioned whether the claimed
sources really existed. However, the article clearly attributed the quotes as
anonymous ones drawn from articles in other publications and it was therefore
clear that the sources of those quotations were not on record with the
dailystar.co.uk. This did not absolve the publication of its obligation to take
care to avoid publishing inaccurate information. However, the Committee noted
that the comments did not appear to significantly differ from the daughter’s
own position during court proceedings: she admitted the offences, she was no
longer able to work in educational settings, and her mental health had been
affected; she was regretful for her actions. Given this, the Committee
considered that the newspaper had taken sufficient care in reporting the claims
made and reporting these comments did not give rise to any significant
inaccuracy requiring correction. There was no breach of Clause 1.
19. The
Committee next considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2. The
Committee noted that the images, which showed only her daughter’s likeness, had
already been published by separate publications prior to this article’s
publication, and were still publicly available on her daughter’s social media
accounts. 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.
20.
Finally, the Committee 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. There was no breach of Clause 3.
Conclusion(s)
21. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
22. N/A
Date
complaint received: 01/04/22
Date complaint concluded by IPSO:13/12/22
Back to ruling listing