Decision of the Complaints Committee – 02925-21 A woman v Metro
Summary
of Complaint
1. A
woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Metro
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into
grief and shock), Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) and Clause 12
(Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article published in
2021.
2. This
decision is written in general terms, to avoid the inclusion of information
which could identify an alleged victim of sexual assault. The complainant was
the spouse who alleged to have been abused.
3. The
article reported on a court case between two spouses. It included statements
from lawyers and attributed various claims to the spouse making the complaint.
It reported that this spouse alleged they had been subject to abuse, which the
judge did not make findings on. It also reported information about the marriage
as a statement of fact, twice. Information regarding the spouse’s profession
was included. The article contained a quote from the other spouse’s barrister
and an application this spouse made to the judge which was denied.
4. The
complainant, one of the spouses referred to, said that the article was
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. They said one of the statements attributed to
lawyers had not been heard in court, and was not accurate. The complainant said
it was inaccurate to report that no findings had been made over the allegations
of abuse, as this had not formed part of the case, was not the purpose of the
hearing, and gave the impression that their allegations against their spouse
were dismissed. The complainant also said they had not spoken in court, and
therefore the article should have attributed claims to their barrister. They
also stated the information about the marriage was contested, and whilst it had
been the position of their spouse, was not a statement of fact. They also said
that the quote from the spouses’ barrister was not adequately attributed, and
that the claim was not true, though they accepted this had been part of the
court hearing.
5. The
complainant also said that the article represented an unjustified intrusion
into their privacy in breach of Clause 2, as it identified their profession and
that they considered themselves a victim of abuse.
6. The
complainant said that the article breached Clause 4 and Clause 11 by
identifying them as a victim of sexual assault. The article named the
complainant and included their allegations that their spouse had abused them.
The complainant said the application by the complainant’s spouse, which was
refused by the judge, amounted to them being a victim of sexual assault and
therefore they should not have been named. The complainant said that being
named in the same article as their alleged abuser was highly distressing and
inappropriate in further violation of Clause 4, and that they had suffered injuries
to their mental health as a result of the publication of the article.
7. The
complainant said that by identifying their profession and that they considered
themselves a victim of abuse, the article had discriminated against them in
breach of Clause 12.
8. The
publication stated that the court report had come from a press agency, and that
a reporter had been present at court. The publication said that it had taken
care not to publish inaccurate information by relying on this report. It provided
an email from the agency stating that the disputed sentence had not come from
the court, but a phone call with the complainant’s barrister afterwards, which
resulted in a misunderstanding. The agency amended its copy of the article. On
receipt of the complaint, the newspaper offered to publish a correction on this
point in its established corrections and clarifications column.
9. The
publication’s initial position was that the judge had said the information
about the marriage it reported, and provided a quote from the agency reporter
from the judge. It said that whilst the complainant disputed the accuracy of
this information, it was not inaccurate to report it where it had been said by
the judge.
10. The
publication said that the complainant accepted that the hearing was not about
whether her husband was abusive, and therefore it was not inaccurate to report
that the judge had not made findings on the allegations of abuse. The reporter
had said he felt it was important to clarify that these issues were not being
considered in the court proceedings he was reporting on. The publication also
said that where it used reported speech, rather than direct quotes, it was
reasonable for them to attribute the summary of the complainant’s case to the complainant,
whether written or spoken in court, as lawyers speak on behalf of their
clients.
11. The
publication said that the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy
and it did not need to seek permission to name their profession. It also said
that as their allegation of domestic abuse was mentioned in court with no
reporting restrictions, it was not a breach of Clause 2 to report this.
12. The
publication said that there was no mention of sexual abuse in the court hearing
or in its report and therefore neither Clause 4, Clause 11 or Clause 12 were
engaged in these points.
13. The
complainant denied that the judge had said the information about the marriage,
The complainant noted that the quote provided by the publication to support its
position was an extract from the case outline submitted by their spouse’s
barrister, not a statement by the judge.
They also provided an email from their barrister which stated that the
judge had not said the information about the marriage.
14. The
publication accepted that it had mistakenly attributed the quote to the judge
in correspondence with IPSO, and apologised for inadvertently misleading the
investigation. While the agency reporter maintained that he recalled the judge
referring to the information about the marriage, the publication said it was
unable to provide any notes to support this assertion and accepted that the
information was a matter for debate. It amended its offer of correction to
include this further information.
Relevant
Code Provisions
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.
Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for
their private and family life, home, physical and mental 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.
Clause
11 (Victims of sexual assault)
The
press must not identify or publish material likely to lead to the
identification of a victim of sexual assault unless there is adequate
justification and they are legally free to do so. Journalists are entitled to
make enquiries but must take care and exercise discretion to avoid the
unjustified disclosure of the identity of a victim of sexual assault.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
15. The
Committee noted that the complainant’s spouse denied the allegations of abuse
and made clear that its role was to consider whether the article complied with
the Editors’ Code as a report on the proceedings, rather than to make findings
on the veracity of claims heard as part of the proceedings.
16. The
publication had relied on a court report from a press agency, which had been
written by a journalist who was present at the court. In addition to the
information heard in court, the journalist had contacted the complainant’s
barrister to provide clarity on one aspect of the case. Newspapers are entitled
to use reports provided by agencies, but in doing so they adopt responsibility
for the care taken by the agency reporter to ensure that information contained
in the published copy is not inaccurate, misleading or distorted.
17. The
first point considered by the Committee was the disputed statement attributed
to the complainant’s barrister. The publication said that this had not been
said in court, but rather in a subsequent telephone conversation between the
journalist and the complainant’s barrister. The complainant said that their
barrister had denied this, and pointed out the statement was not, in any case,
correct. There was clearly a conflict in the two accounts given; in such
instances the Committee would generally expect the publication to support its
account in order to demonstrate it had taken sufficient care over the disputed
claim. The publication did not provide any record or contemporaneous notes of
the conversation with the complainant’s barrister, but only the recollection of
the journalist, obtained subsequent to the complaint. This was not sufficient
to demonstrate that care had been taken not to publish inaccurate or misleading
information, and the Committee found a breach of Clause 1(i) of the Code.
18. The
publication said that there had been a misunderstanding. It appeared to be
accepted that there had been some discussion between the journalist and the
barrister regarding the disputed statement, but that there had been a
misunderstanding as to what this impact would be. This claim was significant
and required correction under Clause 1(ii).
19. The
article twice referred to the information about the marriage which the
complainant said was not an established fact. The complainant said that the
judge had made no finding in this hearing on this point. As the publication had
accepted, it was unable to provide notes to support this claim. In
circumstances where this was a dispute that would be addressed in the
proceedings, the presentation of the complainant’s husband’s position as fact
was a failure to take care in breach of Clause 1(i) of the Code, and resulted
in a significantly misleading statement requiring correction to satisfy Clause
1(ii).
20. The
publication offered a correction on the first point as soon as the complaint
was referred to it, and specified the wording of this correction during IPSO’s
investigation. After becoming aware of new information that contradicted its
understanding about the second point, it amended the wording offered in order
to clarify this point. This represented appropriate promptness on both points.
The placement of the clarification in its established corrections and
clarification column represented due prominence. The correction acknowledged
the original inaccuracies, and put the correct position on record and there was
no breach of Clause 1(ii).
21. The
complainant had accepted that the court had heard that they were a victim of
abuse, but that the court case was not a fact-finding case on these points. It
was therefore accurate for the article to report that the judge had not made
findings on the allegations of abuse; this did not imply that the allegations
had been discounted. The Committee noted that the complainant believed it was
inaccurate to report that they had said anything during the trial, as their
barrister had been the one to speak. The barrister had been representing the
complainant in the proceedings; in this context, it was not inaccurate to refer
in general terms to the claims made in support of the complaint’s case, on
their instructions, as having been attributed to the complainant. It was not
inaccurate to report what was written in the complaint’s spouses case outline,
even in the complainant disputed the validity of the claim. There was no breach
of Clause 1 on these points.
22. With
regards to Clause 11, the Committee made clear that it was not making a finding
as to whether the complainant was a victim of sexual assault, but whether the
article had identified them as such a victim. The complainant had been named in
court without reporting restrictions. During the proceedings, there were
allegations that they had been subjected to abuse. Neither of these allegations
constituted an allegation of sexual abuse, and there was no mention of sexual
assault in the article. In these circumstances, the complainant had not been
identified as a victim of sexual assault and there was no breach of Clause 11.
23. The
complainant’s profession and the allegations of abuse against their spouse were
heard in public through the court proceedings and were not subject to reporting
restrictions. It was, therefore, not a breach of their privacy under Clause 2
to repeat this information.
24. The
complainant also said the publication of the article was intrusive in breach of
Clause 4. The Committee noted that the article was a report of the court
proceedings. Clause 4 makes clear that it does not restrict the right for
publications to report on legal proceedings. The Committee understood that the
publication of the article was upsetting for the complainant, but it was a
report of contemporaneous proceedings that had been heard in court, and there
was no breach of Clause 4.
25.
Clause 12 bars irrelevant and pejorative references to certain characteristics
of an individual. As stated, the Committee did not consider that the
complainant had been identified as a victim of sexual assault, and job titles
are not a protected characteristic. There was no breach of Clause 12.
Conclusions
26. The
complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial
Action Required
27. The
correction which was offered clearly put the correct position on record, and
was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.
Date
complaint received: 01/03/2021
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/09/2021
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.
Back to ruling listing