Decision of the Complaints Committee – 04489-21 Symmonds
v Swindon Advertiser
Summary of Complaint
1. Karen Symmonds complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Swindon Advertiser breached Clause 2 (Privacy)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Awards for police
called to shootout in Stratton street”, published on 30 April 2021.
2. The article reported on the commendations received by
officers of Wiltshire Police for their response to an incident in August 2019,
providing a summary of the circumstances leading up to and including the
two-hour-long armed siege. It reported that the perpetrator’s mother, the
complainant, had suffered a “heart attack” during the incident, and that
officers “put themselves in harm’s way to resuscitate her” by performing CPR
“while ducking out of [her son’s] line of fire”. It also stated that two officers were awarded
formal commendations by Judge Jason Taylor QC in November 2019 when the
perpetrator was sentenced.
3. A substantially similar version of the article also
appeared online with the headline “Hero police officers called to Stratton
shoot out earn awards”.
4. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 2
(Privacy), because it reported that she suffered a heart attack during the
incident. She said that this was private
medical information and as such should not have been published.
5. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Editors’
Code. It said that this medical information was heard in open court during her
son’s case in November 2019. The newspaper provided a copy of the reporter’s
contemporaneous shorthand notes in order to demonstrate this, accompanied by a
transcript of the relevant notes. It
said that newspapers were entitled to report on court proceedings, particularly
in the absence of reporting restrictions. It added that this information was
highly relevant to the story given that police officers were honoured for their
response to the incident and performing CPR on the complainant under the
circumstances described.
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
Findings of the Committee
6. The Committee recognised the distressing circumstances
surrounding this complaint, with the complainant concerned that personal
medical information had been published by the newspaper.
7. The Editors’ Code recognises that publications are
generally entitled to report on legal proceedings, save for particular
circumstances, such as when reporting restrictions have been put in place by
the court. Information given in court, where no restrictions have been imposed,
has been placed in the public domain, and publications are generally free to
report it.
8. The article was a report of the commendations received by
officers of Wiltshire Police for their response to an incident in August 2019
which had itself been subject to legal proceedings later that year. During
these proceedings, the complainant’s heart attack and details of the treatment
she received from police officers were heard in court and, as a consequence,
had been placed into the public domain. As such, the publication of this
medical information did not represent an intrusion into the complainant’s
private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusion
9. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
10. N/A
Date complaint received: 30/04/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/07/2021