Decision of the Complaints Committee – 03066-21 Brian and
Declan Arthurs v Sunday World
Summary of Complaint
1. Brian and Declan Arthurs complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that Sunday World breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and
Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “EX-IRA CHIEF'S COVID BATTLE FOR LIFE”, published on 7
February 2021.
2. The article appeared across page 10 and 11 beneath the
banner: “COVID-19 CRISIS HIGH-PROFILE REPUBLICAN IN INTENSIVE CAREE WITH
VIRUS”, with the sub-heading reading: “Family and friends rally around as
[details of treatment]”. The article reported that Brian Arthurs was “[details
of prognosis]” at Craigavon Area Hospital after contracting Covid-19. It went
on to report that he was suffering from a further condition, and that “family
members, who have not been allowed to visit the hospital, are said to be
growing increasingly concerned after the ex-terror chief was [details of
treatment]”. It contained the following comments made by an unnamed source:
“Brian is [details of treatment] and is not very well at all […] the family are
very concerned, and it’s not helped by the fact that nobody can be with him at
the moment because of the virus. There aren’t a lot of details about his
conditions except he’s not very well and needed [details of treatment]”. The
article made reference to the complainant’s past convictions for terrorism and
fraud, and his alleged ongoing involvement in criminal activity.
3. The article was illustrated with three images, two of
Brian Arthurs alone, and one showing Declan Arthurs standing in front of a pool
with Brian Arthurs in the background. The image of the complainants together
was captioned “Brian Arthurs’ singing son Deaglan posts a selfie of himself,
while his dad and mum [name] enjoy a dip in a Marbella villa.” The article
provided further detail about the circumstances in which the image had been
taken and noted that Declan Arthurs had previously unsuccessfully brought
proceedings intended to prevent media reporting of his connection to his
father.
4. The complainants said the article was a clear breach of
Brian Arthurs’ right to privacy as it had published, without his consent or
permission, private medical information: his diagnosis and his resulting state
of ill-health, his prognosis and the treatment he had received whilst in
hospital. The complainants maintained that prior to the article’s publication
this information had been known only to his immediate family and close friends.
The complainants said the article had caused considerable distress to the family
at a time when Brian Arthurs was in an intensive care unit in hospital and was
likely to die. The complainants said this was insensitive and therefore also a
breach of Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock).
5. The complainants said that the article further breached
Clause 2 (Privacy) by publishing an image of Declan Arthurs, which had been
obtained from his personal Instagram page without his consent or permission.
The complainants said that the inclusion of this image alongside the information
relating to his father’s condition was insensitive and intrusive.
6. The newspaper did not accept that the article breached
the Editors’ Code. It did not consider that Brian Arthurs had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in regard to the published information or, indeed, more
generally, given his notoriety and criminal convictions. It further argued that
Covid-19 was “not a private health matter” but rather a unique public health
emergency and as such the expectation of privacy around it was reduced. In any
event, it said that Mr Arthurs’ condition, and the medical treatment he had
received in hospital, was already in the public domain prior to publication:
their original source resided in Dublin – a separate jurisdiction – and the
information was then confirmed by “at least two separate sources in Northern
Ireland who were not people necessarily privy to access [to the complainant’s]
inner circle of friends and family”. As such, it said that the article did not
reveal anything about the complainant which was not already in the public
domain and therefore did not intrude into his privacy.
7. Second, the publication considered that there had been a
public interest in publishing the story, given Brian Arthurs’ “considerable
notoriety, gained through his own conduct [and] actions”, and a further public
interest in the reporting of Covid-19 cases. It argued that it had a moral duty
to inform the public of the dangers presented by the virus. On a national
level, it said that such stories humanised the virus; thereby helping to tackle
misinformation and encourage vaccination uptake. On a local level, such stories
helped to support ‘track and trace’ efforts, informing the community of
increased risk.
8. Furthermore, the newspaper did not accept that reporting
the treatment Brian Arthurs was receiving was insensitive in breach of Clause
4. It said that Brian Arthurs’ family were fully aware of his condition and the
article did not reveal any new information, report inaccurate information, or
seek to sensationalise events.
9. In addition, the newspaper did not consider that either
the article or the image breached Declan Arthurs’ right to privacy. It was not
in dispute that the image had been obtained from a publicly available social
media page, and it displayed only the complainant’s likeness. The newspaper
said it had originally been published in an article in October 2019, about
which the publication had not received a complaint. Further, the newspaper did
not accept that Declan Arthurs had an expectation of privacy over his
appearance given his participation in a reality television, the related court
action and his resultant notoriety.
10. The complainants disputed the newspaper’s argument that
there should be a diminished expectation of privacy for certain medical
conditions as a result of the profile and prevalence of a virus and/or disease;
medical information should be treated the same regardless. It also challenged
the newspaper’s position that an individual convicted or accused of criminal
offences did not have an expectation of privacy.
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.
*The Public Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they
can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. The public interest includes, but is not
confined to:
There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
The regulator will consider the extent to which material is
already in the public domain or will become so.
Editors invoking the public interest will need to
demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication - or journalistic
activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve, and be
proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that
decision at the time.
Findings of the Committee
11. The terms of the Clause 2 (Privacy) state that everybody
is entitled to respect for their private life and health, and the complainant
was entitled to the same protection offered by the terms of the Clause as any
other person, subject – as with any other person – to exception in the public
interest. The article included detailed information about his health: his
primary diagnosis and his subsequent diagnosis, his treatment and the
prognosis. It was clear to the Committee that the article contained personal
medical information over which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of
privacy. It was left to the Committee to decide whether the publication of this
intrusive information could be justified in the public interest.
12. The Editors’ Code notes that there is a public interest
in protecting public health and safety, and the Committee acknowledged the role
that newspapers play in protecting the health of the wider community in the
time of a pandemic by reporting on the transmission, prevalence, and potential
severity of the virus. It did not consider, however, that the newspaper had
provided an adequate explanation as to how the publication of detailed
information about the complainant’s state of ill-health and his treatment
served to protect public health. Furthermore, while maintaining that the
complainant had a diminished expectation of privacy due to his past criminal
convictions and alleged ongoing involvement in illegal operations, the
publication had not provided a clear explanation as to why these activities
meant that there was a public interest in publishing his intimate medical
information. Finally, the Committee did not consider that the publication had
demonstrated that the information had entered the public domain to any
substantial extent, such that the complainant’s expectation of privacy would be
reduced or eliminated. The Committee concluded that the complainant had a clear
expectation of privacy over the information included in the article about his
diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, and the publication had not advanced a
sufficient public interest argument to justify the intrusion into the
complainant’s private life. There was a
clear breach of Clause 2 of the Code.
13. In the view of the Committee, the publication of the
article was not handled with sensitivity or care at a time of shock. The
article revealed private medical information whilst the complainant was in an
intensive care unit in hospital. This amounted
to a breach of Clause 4.
14. Finally, the Committee considered the privacy concerns
raised by Declan Arthurs. The disputed image only disclosed the complainant’s
likeness; it did not disclose any private information and did not show him
engaged in private activity. The information was already in the public domain,
having featured in a previous article from 2019, following publication on the
complainant’s publicly accessible social media page. In such circumstances, the
Committee did not consider that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in relation to this image, and its publication did not amount to an
intrusion into his private life. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.
Conclusion
15. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
16. Having upheld the complaint under Clause 2 and Clause 4,
the Committee considered the remedial action that should be required. Given the
nature of the breach, the appropriate remedial action was the publication of an
upheld adjudication.
17. The Committee considered the placement of this
adjudication. The adjudication should be published in print, on or before page
10, where the original article appeared. The headline to the adjudication
should make clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint, refer to the subject
matter and be agreed with IPSO in advance of publication.
The terms of the adjudication for publication are as
follows:
Brian and Declan Arthurs complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Sunday World breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and
Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “EX-IRA CHIEF'S COVID BATTLE FOR LIFE”, published on 7
February 2021.
The article reported the medical condition that Brian Arthurs
was suffering from and the treatment he was receiving in hospital.
The complainants said the article was a clear breach of
Brian Arthurs’ right to privacy as it had published, without his consent or
permission, private medical information: his diagnosis with Covid-19 and his
resulting state of ill-health, his prognosis, and the treatment he had received
whilst in hospital. They said that the article’s publication was deeply
upsetting for the family whilst they were in a state of grief, maintaining that
his condition was only known to a close circle of friends and family.
The newspaper did not accept that the article breached the
Editors’ Code. It did not consider that Brian Arthurs had an expectation of
privacy in regard to the published information or, indeed, more generally,
given his notoriety and criminal convictions. It further argued that Covid-19
was “not a private health matter” but rather a unique public health emergency,
citing a public interest in reporting on cases and alerting readers to the
dangers presented by the virus.
The Committee found that the article had published medical
information to which Brian Arthurs’ had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Whilst the Committee noted that there was a public interest in protecting
public health and safety, it did not consider, however, that the newspaper had
provided an adequate explanation as to how the publication of detailed
information about the complainant’s state of ill-health and his treatment
served to protect public health. Nor did the Committee consider that the
newspaper had provided a clear explanation as to why the complainant’s past
criminal convictions and alleged ongoing involvement in illicit activity meant
there was a public interest in publishing this information or demonstrated that
these details had entered the public domain to any substantial extent. In such
circumstances, the article amounted to an intrusion into the complainant’s
private life by publishing, without consent, private medical information. There
was a breach of Clause 2 of the Editors’ Code.
Furthermore, in the view of the Committee, the publication
of the article was not handled with sensitivity or care at a time of shock. The
article revealed private medical information whilst the complainant was receiving
care in hospital. This amounted to a breach of Clause 4.
Date complaint received: 29/03/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/08/2021
The Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
