Decision of the Complaints Committee 04850-19 Young v
Teesside Live
Summary of Complaint
1. Emma Young complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that Teesside Live breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or
shock) and Clause 5 (Reporting of suicide) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “’Ellie fell into the darkness – and I heard a thud’:
Dangling teen lost grip and plunged 150ft” published on 18 June 2019.
2. The article was a report of the complainant’s daughter’s
inquest. The article reported the height and name of the local viaduct that the
complainant’s daughter fell from, and reported that she had accessed the
viaduct through local woods. This was partly illustrated by a photograph of the
viaduct. It reported that the inquest heard that a friend had found the
complainant’s daughter sitting on the edge of the viaduct – when the
complainant’s daughter took hold of a metal railing at the top of viaduct, the
friend grabbed hold of her wrist and jumper to try and restrain her. The
article reported that the complainant’s daughter had “dangled” for a minute
over the edge of the viaduct whilst her friend kept hold of her wrist. However,
the article reported that the friend told the inquest that “I had to let go”
and “[Complainant’s daughter] fell into the darkness – and I heard a thud”.
3. The article also reported the details of the
complainant’s daughter’s post-mortem, and information about her mental health
history. It also reported what was heard during the inquest about difficulties
in the complainant’s daughter’s romantic relationship.
4. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 5
as it included a level of detail as to her daughter’s method of suicide that
was excessive and could enable simulative acts. She said that she was not
previously aware how the viaduct could be accessed – she said that the
inclusion of the photograph, reporting that her daughter had walked through the
woods and along the railway track, and then explaining how she climbed across
the iron railing and sat on the edge, revealed that a jump was possible, and
would almost certainly end a person’s life.
5. The complainant also said that the article breached
Clause 4. She said that she understood that publications were free to report
inquest proceedings, but that the headline reference to the “thud” that her
daughter made when she fell was extremely distressing to her family, as was the
article’s focus on her daughter’s relationships. Likewise, she said that the
description of her daughter as a “dangling teen” was sensational and
insensitive, and noted that these words were not heard during the inquest.
6. The publication did not accept that it had breached the
Code; however it recognised that the article had caused the complainant and her
family distress. It said that in relation to Clause 5, reporting the location
of a death or how to access it did not constitute detail of a suicide method –
any place which was high up was clearly potentially dangerous. It said that
detailing how to get to a place did not constitute detail as what to do next.
In relation to Clause 4, it said that the references to “thud” and the
complainant’s daughter’s relationships were quotations from the inquest; it was
entitled to quote freely from proceedings. In relation to the description of
the complainant’s daughter as a “dangling teen”, it said that this was an
accurate summary of the complainant’s daughter’s friend’s inquest statement, in
which she explained how she had held on to the complainant’s daughter’s arm for
approximately a minute as she was suspended from the viaduct. It said that
although there was no intention to cause upset, the facts of the complainant’s
daughter’s death, as told by her friend during the inquest, were upsetting in
itself; simply accurately summarising this could not be described as insensitive
or gratuitous. It noted that the article was removed by the publication after
it was contacted by the complainant directly as a gesture of goodwill, and
offered to write her a private letter of apology if this would resolve her
complaint.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and
approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled
sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings.
Clause 5* (Reporting Suicide)
When reporting suicide, to prevent simulative acts care
should be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method used, while taking into
account the media's right to report legal proceedings.
Findings of the Committee
8. The Committee expressed its sympathies to the
complainant, and recognised the distressing circumstances surrounding this
complaint.
9. The Committee considered that location may constitute a
detail of the method of suicide. In this case, where the location of death was
central to the method of suicide, Clause 5 was engaged. The report of the
incident did not include a level of detail which was excessive given that,
without reading the article, readers would understand that jumping from an
extreme height could be fatal. The additional details highlighted by the
complainant, including how her daughter reached the viaduct and that she had
climbed over the viaduct railings, did not constitute excessive detail in
breach of Clause 5.
10. Clause 4 requires that publication is handled
sensitively in reporting cases involving grief or shock. Although reporting
evidence heard during an inquest can be very upsetting to families or friends,
deaths affect whole communities and the obligation to handle publication
sensitively does not restrict the right to report legal proceedings including
inquests. The word “thud” was a direct quote from evidence heard at the
inquest, as were the published details about the complainant’s daughter’s
relationship. There was no breach Clause 4.
11. The description of the complainant’s daughter as a
“dangling teen” was not a direct quote from evidence heard at the inquest, and
the Committee recognised that this had the potential to cause distress to the
complainant. The inquest had heard distressing testimony about the events
leading up to the complainant’s daughter death and the Committee considered
that the description in the headline was justified as a summary of this
testimony. The article did not go beyond what was heard at the inquest, and did
not mock or belittle the complainant’s daughter. There was no failure to handle
publication sensitively, and no breach of Clause 4.
Conclusions
12. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action
13. N/A
Date complaint received by IPSO: 19/06/2019
Date decision issued: 13/11/2019