Decision of the Complaints Committee 02478-14 Kumar v Telegraph & Argus
Summary of complaint
1. Amitabh Kumar complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Telegraph and Argus had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy), Clause 4 (Harassment) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Doctor admits sexual
assault”, published 16 August 2014.
2. The newspaper reported that the complainant had been
sentenced following his conviction for sexually assaulting a girl on a bus. The
article had been illustrated with a photograph of the complainant.
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate
and significantly misleading as it had given “undue prominence” to his status
as a non-practicing doctor. He argued that the fact that he is a doctor was not
relevant to the case. He was also concerned that the caption to the photograph
had said that it had been taken as he had been “coming out of court”; he said that
the photograph had in fact been taken after he had been pursued by the
photographer.
4. The complainant said that he had been harassed by the
photographer who had taken his picture. He said that court staff had helped him
avoid the photographer as he had left the building. The photographer had,
however, “stalked” him for around 150 yards. He had been followed by the
photographer and had been forced to run across a busy road. He said that the photographer had followed
him for 300-400 yards in total. The fact that he sought help from court staff,
and had been running away, clearly demonstrated that he did not wish to be
photographed.
5. The complainant said that the conduct of the
photographer represented an intrusion into his grief and shock, in breach of
Clause 5. He said that the newspaper had been aware that he had wept while
being sentenced, and yet a photographer still intruded into his grief by
pursuing him.
6. The newspaper said that the reference to the
complainant as a doctor had been accurate; the complainant had been described
as a doctor in court, and described himself in correspondence as “Dr Amitabh
Kumar”. The article had made clear that the complainant was a “qualified but
not practicing doctor who works with vulnerable adults”.
7. The description of the complainant as coming out of
the court was accurate; while the complainant may not have been immediately
outside the court, he had just left the court building.
8. The newspaper said that as the complainant was a
qualified doctor who was convicted of a sexual offence against a young girl,
there was a clear public interest in taking his photograph. Nonetheless, it did
not accept that the complainant had been harassed. The complainant had not
asked the photographer to desist, nor had the photographer followed the
complainant on to private property.
9. The newspaper provided a written statement from the
photographer which set out his version of events. The photographer said that he
had been unable to get a photograph of the complainant immediately outside of
court. He had therefore circled around the building in hope of intercepting
him, rather than following him directly. The complainant was photographed as he
crossed the road; the photographer did not chase after the complainant.
10. The newspaper said that Clause 5 was not intended to
cover circumstances in which people had been convicted of crime.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
Clause 4 (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 their
property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify
themselves and whom they represent.
Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries
and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication
handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings, such as inquests.
Findings of the Committee
12. The complainant accepted that he was a qualified
doctor, and had not disputed that this had been mentioned during the court
proceedings. The description of him as such was not inaccurate or significantly
misleading, and his concern about the prominence of the reference did not raise
a breach of the Code. As the complainant had been photographed shortly after he
had left court, the photograph’s caption had not been significantly misleading.
There was no breach of Clause 1.
13. The complainant and the newspaper had provided
somewhat contradictory accounts of the circumstances in which the complainant
had been photographed. It was apparent that the complainant had taken steps to
avoid having his picture taken, rather than making clear a request that the
photographer desist. Even on the complainant’s account, his concern that he had
been followed by a single photographer, over what was apparently a relatively
short distance, did not constitute harassment or persistent pursuit, such as a
raise breach of the Code. While the complainant had found the circumstances of
his conviction distressing, the Committee did not find that the photographer
had acted in an aggressive or intimidating fashion in seeking to obtain a
photograph. It also noted that there is a public interest in identifying those
convicted of crime. It did not establish a breach of Clause 4.
14. The terms of Clause 5 relate to the obligations of
publications when reporting on instances of personal grief or shock, and are
designed to protect victims, and their families, from unwanted journalistic
intrusion and insensitivity when they are at their most vulnerable. Coverage
following the complainant’s criminal conviction was not a circumstance which
engaged the terms of Clause 5.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 14/12/2014
Date decision issued: 24/03/2015