· Decision of the Complaints Committee 04512-15 A woman v The Times
Summary of
complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Times had breached Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 14
(Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Blind singer hurt on 7/7 flees stalker”, published on 8 July 2015.
2. The article was an interview with the complainant
which was published the day after the anniversary of the 7 July 2005 bombings.
It reported that she had left London following the attacks, and had now had to
move again as she had been the victim of stalking.
3. The story had initially been published in another
newspaper; that article was the subject of a separate complaint to IPSO. The
complainant said that, prior to publication of the initial article, she had
been contacted by a freelance journalist, a man with whom she had previously
worked, who wanted to interview her; they arranged a telephone call. The
complainant said that during the call they discussed her experiences of the
bombings, the fact that she was being stalked and had had to move home a number
of times, and her career. She said that she had asked that no details relating
to her being stalked be published; those details were “between them”. The
complainant said that she had also asked that her current location not be
revealed, in order to protect her safety; this omission had been agreed by the
journalist.
4. About an hour after the interview the journalist rang
the complainant to ask if she had reported the stalking matter to the police;
she said that she told him during this conversation that the details relating
to her stalking were private. Five hours later she emailed the journalist to
say that she had been thinking about the conversation and was concerned about
the inclusion in the article of any reference to her being stalked. The
journalist replied saying that the story had been written and submitted to
publications, and it included that the reason why the complainant had moved was
that she was being stalked. He said that his understanding was that the
complainant had requested that nothing in the article reveal where she was
living now, and he had ensured that that was the case. The complainant
acknowledged in correspondence with IPSO that it was clear from the
journalist’s recollection of the conversation that he had not heard her
request. The journalist told her that it was too late to remove the story from
the next day’s newspaper.
5. Following publication of the initial article, a
journalist from The Times contacted the complainant to say that she had read
the story with interest and would like to speak further about the complainant’s
experiences. A telephone conversation took place, during which the complainant
said that she had refused to speak about her being stalked, and had hoped that
the journalist would understand that she did not want the information to be
published. The journalist said that she would just use the information that had
been published already. In her complaint to IPSO the complainant said that the
journalist had never asked her if she would be happy with this, and if the
journalist had asked her why she did not want to provide any further
information she would have explained that the information was never meant to be
published in the first place.
6. The newspaper said that during the telephone
conversation the complainant had told the journalist that she had been advised
by her lawyer not to discuss further her experiences of stalking. As a result,
the journalist based the article on the information already published. It said
that if the complainant had explained to the journalist that the initial
article had appeared against her wishes and had caused her distress, then the
newspaper would not have pursued the story any further; the intention of the
article was to be entirely sympathetic to the complainant, and the newspaper
never had any desire to upset her. It noted that the article had not made
reference to the complainant’s current place of residence. It said that the
facts published in the article were already in the public domain and, in any
case, did not amount to private information under the terms of Clause 3.
7. The complainant also complained about similar articles
in two other newspapers. During the investigation into one of those complaints,
it became clear that the complainant had spoken about the fact that she was
being stalked during a speech at a conference in 2015, as she called for unions
to increase measures to protect women in the entertainment industry. An article
about that speech had been published on the website of a specialist newspaper.
Relevant Code Provisions
8. Clause 3 (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. Account will be taken of the
complainant’s own public disclosures of information.
Clause 14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect
confidential sources of information.
The public interest
4. The Regulator will consider the extent to which material
is already in the public domain, or will become so.
Findings of the Committee
9. The Committee understood that the complainant was in a
vulnerable position, and that she was concerned for her safety.
10. The Committee had already established, separately,
that the initial article in the other newspaper did not raise a breach of the
Editors’ Code. That decision informed its consideration of the complaint
against The Times.
11. The initial conversation had been clearly
distinguished as an interview for publication, and the journalist was someone
with whom she had previously worked. The Committee noted the complainant’s
acceptance that the journalist had not acknowledged her request, and it was
clear that there had been no specific agreement to exclude details about the
stalking from the article.
12. When The Times’ journalist had contacted the
complainant seeking comment prior to publication, she had not been told that
the complainant had been upset by publication of the initial article, that she
considered the information to be private, or that she wanted nothing further to
be published. Further, the article did not place any new information in the
public domain. The article under complaint had not given any indication of the
complainant’s current place of residence, and so the Committee did not consider
that the newspaper’s actions had compromised the complainant’s safety. In these
circumstances, the newspaper following up on the previously published story did
not represent an unjustified intrusion into the complainant’s private life;
there was no breach of Clause 3.
13. There was no suggestion that an agreement had been
made that the complainant be treated as a confidential source; there was no
breach of Clause 14.
Conclusions
14. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 16/07/2015