Resolution Statement – 02815-20 Mulqueen v Daily Mail
Summary of Complaint
1. Jill Mulqueen complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause
2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 12
(Discrimination) and Clause 14 (Confidential sources) in articles headlined
“THE DAY EVIL KNOCKED AT THE COTTAGE DOOR” published on 29 February 2020, “EVEN
TOO TERRIFED TO CRY FOR HELP” published on 2 March 2020, and “BLOODBATH IN THE
SNOW” published on 3 March 2020.
2. The articles were serialised extracts from a book written
about a man who attacked and murdered four members of the same family in the
1970s. The articles were written in a narrative style and were detailed in
their descriptions of the man’s crimes. They also included several family photographs
of the people who died. At the end of the final article, it reported that the
one member of the family who had survived had since moved to Ireland and
remarried. It reported that she spoke with one of the authors of the book “in
considerable depth” for the newspaper and that she “signified her consent” to
the authors for the re-telling of her story. The articles were also published
online.
3. The complainant was the woman who had survived the
attack. She said that she had not consented to the book’s publication, as
reported in the articles, and so was greatly distressed and upset by its
serialisation in the newspaper. She said that by reporting that she had
consented to the book’s publication and had cooperated with its authors, the
articles breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) – the newspaper should have verified that
this was the case. She said that it also breached Clause 1 by attributing
quotes and comments to her which she had never said. Furthermore, by failing to
check with her that she had consented to the book and by publishing such an
insensitive, graphic and lurid account, the articles breached Clause 2
(Privacy), 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), 12 (Discrimination), and 14
(Confidential sources). She said that this was exacerbated by the several
family photographs which were included in the articles – which she said that
she had never provided.
4. The newspaper apologised to the complainant for any
distress caused. It said that it took the assurance from the book’s publishers
that they had obtained the complainant’s consent in good faith. It said that it
often published serialisations or extracts of books, and given the depth of
independent research carried out by the authors, it would not be possible to
independently check every factual claim. On receipt of the complaint, it
offered to remove all the online articles from its website. It also then
proposed to publish the following wording in print and online, in its
corrections and clarifications column:
“A book serialisation in February about the tragic
kidnapping and murder of hostage survivor Gill Moran’s family said that Ms
Moran ‘signified to the authors her consent for the re-telling of the story’.
While this was the authors’ belief, Ms Moran has since contacted us to say that
she did not give her consent.”
It also offered to mark its internal library with the
complainant’s concerns, and to circulate an internal warning to staff about the
book excerpt.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. 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.
6. 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. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
7. 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.
8. Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference
to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual
orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender
identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be
avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
9. Clause 14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential
sources of information.
Mediated Outcome
10. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
11. The newspaper offered to publish the following
correction in print in its corrections and clarifications column, is well as
its online corrections and clarifications box:
“A book serialisation in February about the murder of
hostage survivor Gill Moran’s family said that Ms Moran had ‘signified her
consent for the re-telling of the story’. While this was the authors’ belief at
the time, one of them has since said this was a misunderstanding, and Ms Moran
has contacted us to say that she has not spoken publicly about the events since
they took place. We apologise for any upset caused.”
The newspaper also offered to remove the online versions of
the articles from its website, and – if it was brought to the newspaper’s
attention – to ask any third-party websites which may have copied the content
to remove it. The newspaper also offered to circulate an internal warning in
relation to the article, and to write the complainant and her family a private
letter of apology. It also offered to make a donation to a charity of the
complainant’s choice.
12. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to her satisfaction.
13. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the
Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been
any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 23/04/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/08/2020
Back to ruling listing