Decision of the Complaints Committee - 02714-21 Lynn v
Daily Mirror
Summary of Complaint
1. Ryan Lynn complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Daily Mirror breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4
(Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “I'm not a scammer, that was my brother”, published on 4 February
2021.
2. The article was part of the newspaper’s ‘Penman
investigates’ series and explored claims about the complainant’s employer. The
complainant had resigned from his position at the company following the
publication of the article. The article referred to the complainant by name and
briefly mentioned his connection to the company and another business. The
article included a photograph of the complainant and stated that he had been
approached for comment.
3. A substantially similar version of the article also
appeared online.
4. The complainant said that the newspaper had breached his
privacy by publishing the image of him that accompanied the article, which had
been obtained from his LinkedIn profile. Whilst the complainant accepted his
LinkedIn profile was not set to private on 24 January, when he was contacted by
the newspaper for comment about the story, he said that he had subsequently,
and prior to the article’s publication, updated the privacy settings. He added
that no permission had been sought by the newspaper to use the image, which he
considered to be a breach of his privacy. The complainant also said that the
article breached of Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) as it adversely affected
his well-being and professional development by linking him to the investigation
into his former employer. He said that he had been unaware of the matters
discussed in the article.
5. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code.
It said that it had sourced the photograph of the complainant from his publicly
accessible and available LinkedIn profile, two weeks prior to publication, and
maintained that its publication did not represent an intrusion into his private
life. It added that the reporter had attempted to contact the complainant for
comment prior to publication but had received no response. It did not accept
that the complainant’s concerns engaged the terms of Clause 4.
6. Notwithstanding this, in a gesture of goodwill, in direct
correspondence with the complainant, the newspaper offered to amend the online
article to make clear that the complainant had been unaware of the matters
discussed in the article when he joined the company and resigned with immediate
effect on being made aware of it.
Relevant Code Provisions
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.
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
7. Whilst the Committee acknowledged the complainant’s
concerns, the disputed image had been published on his publicly available,
LinkedIn account. Regardless of whether the complainant had de-activated his
account or updated its privacy settings after being contacted by the newspaper,
the information had been available in the public domain. In addition, the
Committee noted that the image disclosed only the complainant’s likeness: it
did not disclose any private or personal information about him, and did not
show him engaged in private activity. It identified him in the context of his
professional role at a former employer and as a former company director; this
was not private information. In such circumstances, the Committee did not
consider that the publication of the image represented an intrusion into the
complainant’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.
8. The terms of Clause 4 relate to the obligations of
newspapers 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 about the
complainant’s previous employment history did not engage the terms of this
Clause.
Conclusion
9. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
10. N/A
Date complaint received: 14/03/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/06/2021
Back to ruling listing