Decision of the Complaints Committee 02837-15
Lavington v Birmingham Mail
Summary
of complaint
1. Allan Lavington complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Birmingham Mail had breached Clause 3 (Privacy)
and Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Church Leader and deacon husband in legal war which began with
unholy row at wedding reception”, published on 2 February 2015.
2. The article reported that the complainant had claimed
unfair dismissal from Gospel Express Academy, a business run by his former
wife. It said that the employment tribunal judge had ruled that the complainant
had not been employed by the business, and could not proceed with his claim.
The article reported both the complainant’s and his former wife’s comments on
their relationship. It included a photograph of the complainant which
showed the complainant’s face against plain background.
3. The complainant said that the photograph was taken
from his confidential personnel file, and was his property. He said that
the use of the photograph intruded into his private life. He said that
following the employment tribunal hearing, a reporter from the newspaper called
him three times on his ex-directory number. In the second call, the reporter
asked the complainant whether he had another partner. The complainant said that
he told the reporter that this was private, and asked him not to call again. He
then ended the call. The complainant said that he made this request as the
reporter’s enquiries were becoming personal.
4. The complainant said that the reporter then called a
third time, and he told the reporter that he had asked him not to call again.
The complainant said that the reporter then apologised, but asked if he wanted
to respond to further comments by his former wife. The complainant
responded by saying that he was not interested in his former wife’s further
comments as he doubted that her comments were true. They then discussed the use
of the complainant’s photograph, and the journalist said that he did not
require the complainant’s permission to take a photograph. The complainant
cautioned the reporter against taking a photograph of him, and ended the call.
He said that the journalist’s comment was intimidating.
5. The newspaper said that photograph of the complainant
was provided by his former wife, following the tribunal hearing. It said that
it believed that the photograph belonged to her, and it was published in good
faith. The newspaper said that the journalist believed that he called the
complainant twice, but could not say with certainty that he did not call a
third time. However, the reporter denied being asked to desist from contacting
the complainant, and the newspaper noted that the complainant had commented
freely throughout his conversations when he was free to end these calls at any
time. It said that the second phone call was on 13 March, the purpose of which
was to provide the complainant with an opportunity to comment in advance of a
further article. The reporter was correct to tell the complainant that he did
not require his consent to photograph him outside the public tribunal.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. Clause 3 (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 in
private places without their consent. Note - Private places are public or
private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
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.
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
7. The photograph of the complainant was a
straightforward portrait, which contained no information about the complainant
beyond his likeness. Identification of the complainant via this photo, in the
context of reporting on his hearing at an employment tribunal, did not disclose
any private information about him; it did not intrude into his privacy, and
there was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.
8. The Committee noted the newspaper’s position that,
from the reporter’s recollection, he called the complainant twice, but that he
could not state with certainty that he did not call Mr Lavington a third time.
The newspaper had not provided any records to support its position that there
were only two calls. The Committee considered this complaint on the basis of
the complainant’s account of the number of calls made.
9. The complainant said that he had asked the reporter
not to call again at the end of the second call, and that the third call was
therefore a case of harassment. However, the newspaper denied that such request
had been made. Given the conflicting accounts, and the absence of any evidence
on whether the reporter was asked not to call again, the Committee was not in
the position to make a finding on this point. Nevertheless, it noted that
the complainant had previously provided comments in response to the
journalist’s enquiries, and that on the complainant’s own account, the
conversation in the third call was not, on its face, harassing or intimidating.
The journalist was free to inform the complainant of the fact that under Code,
there are circumstances in which photographs can be taken and published without
consent. In these circumstances, and in light of the content of the third call,
while recognising it had not been able to determine whether the complaint had
asked the journalist not to call again, the Committee did not uphold the
complaint under Clause 4.
Conclusions
10. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 20/05/2015
Date decision Issued: 02/09/2015
Back to ruling listing