Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02672-20 A Man v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. A man
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Mail Online
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into
shock and grief) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Liverpool fan who was seen in iconic photo of the aftermath of the
Hillsborough disaster dies from coronavirus aged 65 days before tragedy's 31st
anniversary”, published on 14 April 2020.
2. The
article reported on the death of a named man who “was famously pictured sitting
on the Leppings Lane terrace at the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield with his
head in his hands” after the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. The article
reported that the image had been shared thousands of times. The article
described the tributes that had been given to the named man after his death,
and described his role in the Hillsborough disaster. The article included
quotes from the named man’s daughter that it reported as being given to another
named newspaper. The article stated that the named man “often denied the
harrowing image of the survivor sitting alone with his head in his hands on the
afternoon of April 15, 1989, was him” which his family said was because it
brought back too many painful memories. However, the article went on to report
that “When he moved home and found the jacket he was pictured wearing, [his
daughter] said it opened up old wounds”.
3. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because
it had named the wrong person as the subject of the photograph. The complainant
said that he was the person in the photograph, but that this had been
consistently misreported. The complainant supplied contemporary pictures of
himself, as well as a video taken on the day of the disaster which he said
showed him in the same tracksuit as the person in the photograph was wearing
under a coat. He also provided another photograph of the man, which was taken
at the same time and positioning as the published photograph but showed the
man’s face, rather than it being hidden in his hands. The complainant also
noted that the named man had previously denied that it was him in the
photograph.
4. The
complainant said that as the photo was inaccurate and publishing it without
consent caused distress and was a breach of his privacy under Clause 2. He also
publishing it made him recall the painful memories of the Hillsborough disaster
in breach of Clause 4.
5. The
publication said it did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the story
had been taken in good faith from another newspaper. Upon receipt of the
complaint it contacted the newspaper which it said stood by the identification
of the person in the photograph as being the person the article named, and that
it had been verified by the named man’s family. It described the steps the
other newspaper had taken to verify the image was of the named man, and noted
that the article contained quotes from the named man’s daughter confirming it
was him. The publication that it was confident after reviewing the steps taken
by the other publication that sufficient care had been taken to publish
accurate information by the other newspaper. The publication went on to say
that the images and video supplied by the complainant were not conclusive proof
that he was the person in the image, as the photos were too poor quality and
the trainers appeared to be different. It said that on this basis it would not
be appropriate to remove the image from the article.
6. The
publication said that the concerns raised under Clause 2 related to accuracy,
and not privacy, and therefore the Clause was not engaged.
7. The
publication said it regretted that the publication of the article had upset the
complainant. However, it said that as it believed the photo correctly
identified the named man, the complainant did not have standing to complain
under Clause 4, and there was no breach.
Relevant
Code Provisions
8. 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.
9. 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. 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.
10. Clause
4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
In cases
involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with
sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions
should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
Findings
of the Committee
11. The
Committee acknowledged the very difficult emotions that the Hillsborough
disaster still generates for many people, and expressed their sincere
sympathies to the complainant, and all those who have been affected by it.
12. The
Committee stressed that its role was not to make findings of fact regarding the
definitive identity of the man; instead the Committee was asked to consider
whether the publication had taken care over the accuracy of the information it
had published, and whether any information was significantly inaccurate so as
to require correction under the terms of the Editors’ Code.
13. Firstly,
the Committee considered the care demonstrated by the publication, prior to
publication, in line with its obligations under Clause 1(i). While the
information in the article had originally been published by another newspaper,
the Code states that each publication is responsible under the Code for the
material it publishes. In this instance, the Committee was concerned that the
steps taken during the newsgathering process by another publication appeared to
only be known to the Mail Online after publication. However, the central claim of the article,
that the named man had died and was the one pictured in the photographs, had
come from an interview given by the daughter of the named man. The article
under complaint had made this clear, and therefore had taken care to accurately
report the basis for its claims. Where it was not in dispute that these quotes
had been reported accurately, on this occasion there was no breach of Clause
1(i).
14. The
Committee then considered whether there was a significant inaccuracy that
required correction under Clause 1(ii). The Committee reiterated that it was
not in a position to determine who was in the photograph, but to consider the
evidence provided by both the complainant and the publication and to make a
decision as to whether the newspaper had complied with its obligations under
the Editors’ Code. The complainant had provided further images and a video from
day of the Hillsborough disaster, however, even with this evidence the
Committee was not able to conclusively decide which man was pictured in the
photograph, and was therefore unable to make a finding as to whether the
article was inaccurate in order to require a correction under Clause 1(ii).
15. The
Committee recognised the trauma of the Hillsborough disaster and the impact and
distress that the publication of the photograph had caused the complainant.
However, the test under Clause 4 relates to whether the publication of
information had been handled sensitively. The publication had published the
article in good faith on information that was in the public domain. Whilst this
was upsetting for the complainant, it was entitled to publish the photograph
and there was no breach of Clause 4.
16. In
addition, Clause 2 considers the extent to which the material complained about
is already in the public domain. The image was an iconic image of the
Hillsborough disaster and, in addition to being shared on social media
thousands of times after the named man’s death, and both the complainant and
publication accepted that the image had published multiple times over the past
30 years. On this basis the image could not be considered to be private and there
was no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusions
17. The complaint
was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
18. N/A
Date
complaint received: 17/04/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/11/2020
Back to ruling listing