Decision of the Complaints Committee 04850-20 Shepherd v The Sun
Summary of Complaint
1. Joanna Shepherd
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors' Code of Practice
in an article headlined " Love,
honour and ...delay", published 4 April 2020.
2. The article appeared
in substantially the same format online under the headline “MR MONEY Devastated
brides and grooms may have to delay weddings by YEARS due to virus”, published
on 3 April 2020.
3. The article reported
that the Covid-19 Pandemic was leading to couples “having to delay their
weddings by YEARS or not have the big day they wanted”. It discussed one case
where the couple stand “to lose the £20,000 they spent
on their wedding venue unless they delay the event until 2022”. It went on
to quote the bride-to-be as having “said: “The venue — Coltsford Mill near
Oxted, Surrey — has offered us alternative midweek dates in December or else
the earliest possible spring-summer date for a Saturday when family and friends
can make it is 2022…so we either stick with that place and have the wedding in
2022 or lose £20,000””.
4. The complainant, the owner of the venue, said it was inaccurate to
state that the couple stand “to lose the £20,000 they
spent on their wedding venue”. The actual cost of the venue was around £8,500; and the couple had so far paid only £3,850. The complainant also said it was inaccurate
to state that the earliest possible date for a rescheduled wedding was in 2022,
as the couple had been offered alternative dates before then. The complainant
also expressed concern that she had not been approached for comment; that the
article would damage her business; and that it was published without the
bride-to-be’s consent. Finally, the complainant said that the article breached
Clause 2 (Privacy) because it named her business.
5. The publication accepted that it had conflated the cost of the venue
and the cost of the wedding as a whole. Regarding the complainant’s other
points, the publication did not accept it had breached the Code. The
publication said that the article did not state that the next available date
the venue could offer was in 2022, rather it had made clear that 2022 was the
“earliest possible” date according to the preferences of the couple and the availability of their wedding guests.
6. The publication
stated that it had removed the name of the complainant’s business from the
online article on the day of publication. It offered to publish the following
correction on page 2 and as a footnote to an amended online article:
An article "Love,
honour...and delay" (4 Apr) reported the story of a couple whose wedding
was being postponed. We would like to clarify that £20,000 was the cost of the
wedding as a whole, not the cost of the venue.
7. The complainant did
not accept this offer.
Relevant Code provisions
8. 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 correction, promptly and with due prominence,
and –where appropriate- an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due
prominence should be as required by the regulator.
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.
Findings of the Committee
9. The article claimed that the couple stood “to lose the £20,000 they
spent on their wedding venue” when the actual cost was around £8,500. The
publication admitted that it had conflated the cost of the venue and the cost
of the wedding as a whole. The publication therefore failed to take care not to
publish inaccurate information. There was a breach of Clause 1(i).
10. This inaccuracy was significant as there was a considerable gap
between the actual and reported cost of the venue. Therefore, a correction was
required under the terms of Clause 1(ii). The correction offered identified the
inaccuracy and was offered promptly, as part of the publication’s first
substantive response during IPSO’s investigation. The proposed correction also
met the requirements of due prominence, appearing on Page 2 in the regular
corrections column and as a footnote to the amended online article. There was
no breach of Clause 1(ii).
11. The article made clear that the reason for the next possible wedding
date being in 2022 was in part due to the preferences of the couple and the
availability of their wedding guests, rather than this being the next date
offered by the wedding venue. There was no breach of Clause 1.
12. Clause 1 requires publications to take care not to publish
inaccurate or misleading information, and to correct significantly inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information. The complainant’s concern that the article
was published without the bride-to-be’s consent did not relate to this, nor was
the complaint made on her behalf. This point did not engage the terms of Clause
1.
13. The name of a business is a matter of public record and does not
relate to a person’s private and family life. As such, the complainant did not have
a reasonable expectation of privacy over the name of her business. There was no
breach of Clause 2.
Conclusion
14. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial Action required
16. The correction offered
by the publication satisfied the requirements of Clause 1(ii) for the reasons
set out above and should now be published.
Date complaint received: 02/05/2020
Date decision issued: 09/07/2020