Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 03308-21 Reed v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. Alison
Reed complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail
Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion
into grief and shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“EXCLUSIVE: Charlotte Church's biological father Stephen Reed dies from
coronavirus, aged 56 - without ever reconnecting with his estranged daughter”,
published on 17 February 2021.
2. The
article reported on the death of Stephen Reed. It said that he had “walked out
on wife [name] and two-year-old [named daughter]” and had not “reconnect[ed]
with his estranged daughter”. The article stated that a “post mortem
examination was carried out for the Glamorgan Coroner”. It described Mr Reed as
having left his wife and daughter “to start a new life with hospital podiatrist
Alison”, and gave the first name and ages of their two adult sons. It was
reported that it was “understood he later died at his home in Cowbridge, Vale
of Glamorgan with his family at his side”. The article contained several
photographs of Mr Reed, his wife, and one from 2000 which included his wife and
his two sons when they were under 16.
3. The
complainant, the wife of Mr Reed at the time of his death who had been named in
the article, said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She
said there had been no post-mortem or coroner involvement, which had been
confirmed to her by the coroner. She also said that it was inaccurate to state
that her husband had left his wife, as she was his first wife; he had not been
married to his pervious partner. She said that he had not died at home
surrounded by his family peacefully, but with her only and under distressing
circumstances. She also said the article had inaccurately claimed that her late
husband had abandoned his previous partner and daughter.
4. The
complainant also said that the article breached her privacy under Clause 2. She
said that the photograph of her, her husband and their two sons had been taken
when she and her family had been interviewed for a separate article. She said
that the photograph had been taken in a hotel room in order to accompany the
article, but prior to publication of the piece, the publication had requested
further information, which caused the family to withdraw consent for the
publication of the article and the photograph, which was never published. The
complainant said that neither she nor her sons had been comfortable when the
photograph was taken. In addition, she said a photo of her and a photo of her
late husband which appeared in the article had been taken from her Facebook
page, which she believed was only visible to friends. She also said that the
article named her and her job, which she said had not previously been
published.
5. The
complainant also said that the publication of the article intruded into her
grief and shock in breach of Clause 4 as it added to her distress at the point
where she was grieving her husband. She said the inaccuracies in the article
compounded this intrusion into her grief and shock and led her to receive phone
calls from members of the public.
6. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the fact of a
death is a matter of public record and can be published, though it appreciated
that the family and friends of the deceased may prefer for a death to be
private. It said that the article was accurate and chronicled some significant
events in the complainant’s husband’s life, which had been previously reported
on, and he had spoken about to reporters. It said, therefore, that the article
did not intrude into the complainant’s grief in a manner that would breach
Clause 4.
7. It
explained that the reporter had contacted the relevant coroner’s office, who
stated that there would not be an inquest as a post mortem had shown that he
died of natural causes. It said that this information was relayed by phone and
there were no notes of the conversation. The publication removed this statement
as a gesture of goodwill. It said that the previous partner of the
complainant’s husband had frequently been referred to as his first wife in
press coverage and that it had taken care not to publish inaccurate information
by relying on sustained and repeated publication of this error over the course
of 30 years, which had not been challenged. However, it removed this reference.
The newspaper also said that it was not inaccurate to describe the
complainant’s husband as having died with “his family by his side” where his
wife was with him. It said that, in any case, it had used the word “understood”
and would amend this sentence to clarify. The newspaper said that the article
had never use the term “abandoned”. The publication offered to publish the
following as a footnote to the article:
In a
previous version of this article, it was reported that Maria Church was married
to Stephen Reed and that Mr Reed had a post mortem examination. Alison Reed, Mr
Reed’s widow, has advised that he was not previously married and there was no
post mortem. We are happy to set the record straight.
8. The
publication said that the images included within the article were chosen
because it considered them to show the complainant’s late husband at times when
he was happy and healthy with his family, and not engaged in any particularly
private situation. It said that it did not consider the photographs to depict
information for which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The photo that showed the complainant, her husband and their two sons, had been
taken by a photographer for the newspaper and had been kept in the archives
since 2005. It had contained the advisory note: “not to be used without the
permission of Stephen Reed”. The newspaper said it has been unable to seek Mr
Reed’s permission as he had died, and that as the image was a flattering and
happy family shot, with no information that could be considered to be private,
it chose to use it. It noted that the complainant had willingly chosen to pose
for this photo, and that their withdrawal of consent for the publication of the
photo was not based on concerns regarding the image, but the substance of the
article the image was to accompany. Whilst the publication did not consider
this to be a breach of Clause 2, it removed the image as a gesture of goodwill.
In addition, it noted that the two other images under complaint had been taken
from the complainant’s Facebook page where they were public. It supplied
screenshots of the images and their privacy settings.
9. The
publication also said that the article was published seven weeks after the
complainant’s husband’s death, and chronicled some significant events of his
life. It said these had been covered in previous articles, and that the
complainant’s husband had publicly spoken about them previously. It also noted
that a reporter had approached the family for comment in December, just after
the death, and had spoken to a person it believed to be the complainant’s son,
but had left after the man had refused to comment. It said that Clause 4 was
not engaged.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
10. The
Committee expressed its condolences to the complaint for her loss, and the
distress she felt.
11. The
article reported that a “post mortem examination was carried out for the
Glamorgan Coroner”, which the complainant said was not the case. The newspaper
had no notes or other record of the conversation and had therefore not been
able to demonstrate that it had taken care over the accuracy of the article on
this point when challenged by the complainant. The Committee therefore found a
breach of Clause 1(i). In an article reporting on the death of the
complainant’s husband, whether or not he had a post-mortem was a significant
inaccuracy which required correction under Clause 1(ii).
12. The
article had described the complainant’s husband as leaving his “wife” for her;
however, it accepted that he had not been married to the woman referred to. The
newspaper was able to demonstrate that it had been widely reported in the past
that the woman had been his wife. In these specific circumstances, where the
claim had been repeated as fact for over three decades without apparent
challenge, the Committee concluded that reliance on extensive past publication
of this piece of information was sufficient to demonstrate that the publication
had taken care not to publish inaccurate information over this claim. The
Committee noted that the term marriage may be used in a more general way than
specifically in connection with a legal contract of marriage, and it noted that
it had no information about the position of Mr Reed’s former partner on the
status of the relationship. Nonetheless, the publication had accepted that it
did not have proof of Mr Reed’s previous marital status. In these
circumstances, the Committee considered that it was appropriate for the
publication to offer to correct this claim, which related to a significant
detail of Mr Reed’s life, in accordance with the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
13. The
publication had offered a footnote clarification to the article which
represented due prominence. It had offered to clarify this point, and other
contested points of accuracy within the article, upon receipt of the complaint,
and specified the exact wording during IPSO’s investigation which represented
due promptness. The wording acknowledged the initial inaccuracies and put the
correct position on record, and therefore there was no breach of Clause 1(ii).
14. The
Committee acknowledged how upsetting the circumstances of the complainant’s
husband’s death had been and that she considered the reference to him dying
“with his family at his side” to be misleading. However, where the complainant
accepted that she, his wife, had been with her husband whilst he died, it was
not inaccurate to report that it was “understood” that her husband had died
“with his family at his side“. Finally, there had not been a version of the
article with the term “abandoned” in it, and therefore the Committee was unable
to make any findings on this point. There were no further breaches of Clause 1.
15. The
Committee acknowledged the situation regarding the press photo, and that there
had been a specific request not to use it without the consent of the
complainant’s husband. The question for the Committee was whether the
complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the photograph.
16. The
image showed the family together in a hotel room. There was no private
information within the photo itself – the complainant and her family had
willingly posed for it, and it simply showed a family group. The complainant’s
husband had withdrawn consent for the publication of the photograph alongside
the article it was taken for; however, this was not due to concerns about
privacy, but rather due to concerns about the basis of the article. The
photograph had not formed part of the complainant’s private correspondence, or
digital communications, as it had been taken and stored by the media company.
In the circumstances where the photo did not contain any information for which
the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy and had not formed part
of any correspondence by the complainant, she had no expectation of privacy and
there was no breach of Clause 2.
17. The
other photographs in the article were available on the complainant’s Facebook
page and were open to the public. Where these images were in the public domain,
there was no reasonable expectation of privacy and no breach of Clause 2.
18. The
Committee acknowledged that the publication of the article caused the
complainant distress at what was already a very difficult time, and that
revisiting past events and press coverage of the complainant’s husband’s
relationship with his daughter was upsetting in the wake of his death. However,
a factual report of matters relating to his life that were well-established in
the public domain as a result of reporting during his lifetime, including his
own disclosures did not amount to insensitive handing of publication. Whilst it
was a matter of regret that members of the public had contacted the complainant,
this did not result in a breach of Clause 4. Where publication had been handled
sensitively, there was no breach of Clause 4.
Conclusions
19. The
complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial
Action Required
20. 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: 13/04/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/09/2021
Back to ruling listing