Decision of the Complaints Committee 03990-15 Kaminska
v Southern Daily Echo
Summary of
complaint
1. Ana Kaminska complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Southern Daily Echo breached Clause 3
(Privacy), Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) and Clause 12
(Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Mother watched son’s fatal jump on her birthday”, published on 2 June 2015 in
print and online.
2. The article was a report of the inquest into the death
of the complainant’s brother, Jurijus Trofimovas. It reported that the coroner
recorded a verdict of suicide at the inquest, and that the court heard that
during a party, Mr Trofimovas had “jumped head-first from his fourth-floor
window”. Further, it named the family members and friends present at the party,
including the complainant’s younger brother, who is a child.
3. The complainant said that the publication of the
partial address of the property where the incident had taken place, her name,
the names of those present at the party, and in particular the name of her
younger brother constituted a failure to respect the private lives of those
individuals in breach of Clause 3, given that the family was still grieving.
4. The complainant also said the article reported in
excessive detail the way in which her brother had died, and that the family had
not been asked whether they consented to the article’s publication. She
considered that this was in breach of Clause 5. She also considered that the
reference to her and her family’s nationality breached Clause 12.
5. The newspaper expressed its condolences for the
complainant’s loss. It did not however accept that there had been a breach of
the Code. It said that it was entitled to publish details of information
disclosed during proceedings at the Coroner’s Court, provided it did so
accurately; the Code does not impose a requirement to seek consent from
affected family members prior to publication. It said that the complainant’s
name, the names of the family members and friends present at the party, and the
address at which the incident had taken place had been disclosed during
proceedings, and that the publication of these details did not therefore
constitute a breach of Clause 3. Further, it did not accept that reference to
the family’s nationality raised a breach of Clause 12, given that this detail
was heard during proceedings.
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.
Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries
and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication
handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings, such as inquests.
*ii) When reporting suicide, care should be taken to
avoid excessive detail about the method used.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative
reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation
or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion,
sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided
unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
7. The Committee extended its sympathies for the family’s
loss. It understood that the publication of the family and friends’ names and
partial address had caused the complainant concern. Further, it understood that
the publication of the name of the complainant’s younger brother had caused her
particular concern. However these details were disclosed during proceedings at
the Coroner’s Court, and were a matter of public record. In the absence of
reporting restrictions, the newspaper was entitled to publish information that
had previously been disclosed in open court. There was no breach Clause 3.
8. The article had been a report of the inquest into Mr
Trofimovas’ death, and its tone was not insensitive or derogatory. Further,
while the Committee understood that the complainant found the publication of
details relating to the circumstances of Mr Trofimovas’ death to be upsetting, these
were not excessive under the terms of Clause 5 (ii). There was no breach of
Clause 5.
9. The article had not made prejudicial or pejorative
reference to the nationality of the complainant, or to the family of Mr
Trofimovas. The inclusion of biographical details, including an individual’s
nationality, would not generally breach the terms of Clause 12 (ii). Further
this detail had been disclosed during proceedings at the Coroner’s Court. There
was no breach of Clause 12.
Conclusions
10. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 06/06/2015
Date decision issued: 26/08/2015