Decision of the Complaints Committee – 04288-19 Bellamy v
Daily Mail
Summary of complaint
1. Craig Bellamy complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and
Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors' Code of Practice in an article headlined
"BELLAMY OUT" published on 15 May 2019.
2. The article reported that Cardiff Football Club Academy
coach Craig Bellamy would lose his position as under 18's head coach
"after an investigation into bullying claims against him". The
article reported that he had taken a period of leave following the allegations "but
it is understood the 39-year-old will not return to that position". The
article went on to report that "he could yet face FA charges should the
governing body decide to take a closer look at the case once the club return
their findings". The article reported that families of the players who
made the allegations had issued a statement on the investigation with the
support of the Professional Footballers Association.
3. The article also appeared in much the same format online
under the headline "Craig Bellamy OUT: Cardiff City youth role is over
after bullying inquiry as parents of players welcome decision" published
on 14 May 2019.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate. He
accepted that he had left the club but said that he had not been dismissed by
the football club as a result of the investigation; he had stood aside while an
investigation, which remains ongoing with his cooperation, was being undertaken
and no decision had been reached. The complainant also said that the article
was misleading as it reported that only the players who had made complaints
about his conduct were supported by the Professional Footballers' Association,
when he himself was also supported by the PFA.
5. The complainant said that the article represented an intrusion
into his privacy in breach of Clause 2 (Privacy). He said the article had
obtained information about the investigation and reported details of his
employment relationship. The complainant said that he had reasonable
expectation of privacy in relation to this information.
6. The publication denied any breach of the Code. While the
article referenced the investigation, it was not reporting on the outcome of
the investigation and it was clear for readers that the investigation was
ongoing. The article had reported that the complainant would not be returning
to his role regardless of the outcome of the investigation. The publication
said that this was confirmed prior to publication by a senior anonymous source
within the football club. The publication provided an email it received from
its reporter documenting a phone conversation he had with another source
providing verification that the club had no complaints over the accuracy of the
article. The publication also said that it had contacted the complainant's
representative prior to publication and that they had confirmed that he
consented to the article's publication provided it did not report that the
complainant had been sacked or that the allegations had been upheld by the
ongoing investigation. It emphasised that the article was predictive in nature
and made clear that a conclusion by the governing body had not been reached. In
any event, the complainant was not in a position to know what steps the club
were going to take in light of the allegations. The publication also
highlighted that the complainant had since left the club and not returned.
7. The publication denied that the complainant had a
reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information reported in
the article. It said that the complainant had spoken publicly about the
investigation, and in any event, the article did not disclose any details
regarding the investigation.
8. Despite the publication’s position that Clause 2 was not
engaged, it said that the article’s publication was in the public
interest. It said that it concerned
serious allegations of wrongdoing made against the complainant by the families
of young people under his professional care and referenced the wider emerging
problem in football regarding systemic failure to safeguard young aspiring
footballers. It said that the article fell comfortably within the Code’s own
provision of the public interest which includes “raising or contributing to a
matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical
conduct or incompetence concerning the public”.
Relevant Code Provisions
9. 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.
10. 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 intrusion 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.
The Public Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they
can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public
interest includes, but is not confined to:
2. There is a
public interest in freedom of expression itself.
3. The regulator
will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain or
will become so.
4. 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.
5. An exceptional
public interest would need to be demonstrated to over-ride the normally paramount interests of children
under 16.
Findings of the Committee
11. When read in isolation, the headline of the article
could have been understood to mean that the investigation had concluded and a
decision taken to remove the complainant. However, the body of the article
clarified that the complainant would lose his position but did not report that
the complainant had lost his position as a result of the investigation. The
article made clear that the investigation was ongoing by virtue of reporting
that the club was yet to return its findings. In these circumstances, it was
not significantly misleading to report that the complainant was
"out", or that he would lose his position after the bullying probe.
The basis for the claim that the complainant would not be returning to his role
originated from a well-placed source at the club, the identity of which the publication
was under no obligation to reveal. The Committee considered that the
publication was entitled to rely on the account of this source to report that
the complainant would lose his position, and that the complainant was not in a
position to dispute this. The publication had then provided a note of a
conversation with another on the record source confirming the article's
accuracy; there was no failure to take care. Where it was clear that the
investigation was ongoing and the complainant was not in a position to know
what action the club was planning on taking, the article was not significantly
inaccurate and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
12. The article reported that the parents of the children
had released a statement with the backing of the PFA. However, the selection of
material for publication is a matter of editorial discretion as long as the
Code is not otherwise breached. Not reporting that the complainant also had
support from the PFA did not render the article significantly misleading. There
was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
13. The Committee considered that a work place investigation
may attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the article did not
reveal any specific details about the investigation itself and did not reveal
any information about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of
privacy. Further, there was a public interest in reporting that the
complainant, a coach responsible for the welfare of young footballers, was
under investigation for alleged wrongdoing. There was no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusions
14. The complaint was not upheld
Remedial action required
15. N/A
Date complaint received: 17/05/2019
Date decision issued: 12/11/2019