Decision of the Complaints Committee 04012-15 A woman
v Mail Online
Summary of
complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) in an
article headlined “Burglar ‘caught trying to break into house by hidden camera
installed by BBC Springwatch presenter to monitor urban foxes’”, published on 4
June 2015.
2. The article reported the on-going trial of a man who
had been charged with burglary and attempted burglary.
3. The complainant was a friend of the man who had been
charged, and had arrived at court with him to give him “family support”,
although she said that she had not attended the hearing. She said that the
inclusion in the article of a photograph of her standing behind him represented
a breach of Clause 9. She had contacted the newspaper directly, prior to
contacting IPSO, and it had cropped her out of the photograph.
4. The newspaper said that it had made no attempt to
actively identify the complainant in the article: she was not named, nor was
she referred to in the text. It said that there was no suggestion that she had
been involved in the crime for which her friend was subsequently convicted. The
newspaper said that the complainant had accompanied her friend to court, and
her presence on the day made her genuinely relevant to the story.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. Clause 9 (Reporting of crime)
i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused
of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they
are genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
6. The press is generally entitled to report what is
heard in court, and to photograph those involved in court cases arriving and
leaving the court buildings, subject to any other legal restrictions. In this
case, the inclusion of the complainant in the image had been incidental. She
was in the background of a photograph of the defendant, and the image did not
suggest the nature of the relationship between the two individuals. She was not
referred to in the text of the article, nor was the relationship between the
two individuals specified. The Committee found that the complainant had not
been identified as a friend or relative of the accused man, and the terms of
Clause 9 were not engaged. Nonetheless, the Committee welcomed the newspaper’s
prompt response to the complainant’s concerns.
Conclusions
7. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 09/06/2015
Date decision issued: 24/09/2015