Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 04917-21 Akhtar v The Sunday Times
Summary
of Complaint
1. Adeel
Akhtar complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
Sunday Times breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or
shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “‘MINUTES FROM
DISASTER’”, published on 16 May 2021.
2. The
headline was followed by the sub-heading “Smoke-filled stairwells, faulty fire
doors and raging flames: how a fire in a block with £3m flats was almost
another Grenfell tragedy” and reported that key safety measures had failed when
a fire broke out at New Providence Wharf – a high-rise residential block
covered externally with aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding, the same
material used on Grenfell Tower. The article, which appeared across pages 8 and
9, stated that the fire was “believed to have started as an electrical fault in
the fuse box of [flat number] on the eighth floor of block D” and included a
chronology of the fire alongside analysis by a fire safety expert and the
accounts of residents. It reported that the London Fire Brigade (LFB) was still
in the process of investigating the fire.
3. The
article was accompanied by six photographs: two showed the exterior of the
building and the extent of the fire, two showed images of affected residents,
and two showed the corridor of the eighth floor “before” and “after” the fire.
These photographs accompanied an infographic which detailed the materials used
on the building’s exterior and provided a floorplan of the eighth floor,
identifying where the fire had started.
4. The
article also appeared online under the headline “New Providence Wharf fire was
‘minutes’ away from being another Grenfell Tower” and included a photograph
which had not been published in the print article, showing the interior of a
room “after the blaze”, with burnt debris covering the floor and a layer of
soot covering the walls.
5. The
complainant said that the article breached Clause 2 (Privacy), because it
identified his flat as being the source of the fire. He said that this was
private information and as such should not have been published: no other coverage
of the fire had identified the flat number where the fire had started.
Furthermore, he said that the photograph captioned “after the blaze” showed the
interior of his home and was taken without his consent or permission. He said
that this photograph could not have been taken without entering his apartment
and consequently must have been taken by an individual trespassing on his
property. He added that the publication of the article was insensitive and
caused him distress as well as reputational damage, in breach of Clause 4
(Intrusion into grief or shock).
6. The
newspaper did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It denied that the
article represented an intrusion into the complainant’s private life, and said
that the complainant was not named in the piece and nor could he be identified
by any of the information included in the article as the owner of the flat. It
said that the number of the flat, which was suspected to be where, or near to
where, the fire started, was not private information, and could be identified
by the images of the fire which had been published in conjunction with the
publicly available plans of the development. Furthermore, the number of the
flat where the fire had started was known to the many hundreds of residents in the
development.
7. In
regard to the photograph under complaint, the newspaper said this was not
identified in the article as the flat where the fire was suspected to have
started, adding that more than one apartment was damaged in the incident. In any
event, it said that the disputed photograph did not reveal any detailed
information about the complainant or his private life.
8. Furthermore,
the newspaper denied any intrusion into the complainant’s property and
maintained that the disputed photograph had been taken from the corridor by an
individual with authorisation to be in this section of the building. It noted
the publicly available floorplan of the building demonstrated that it was
possible for the photograph to be captured from this location, rather than from
inside the property, as suggested by the complainant. Though it was unable to
specify exactly where the photograph had been taken, it provided an uncropped
version of the photograph in order to further demonstrate that it had been taken
“through an open door” from the corridor. It added that the LFB report into the
fire indicated that the flat’s door was left open when the occupant had
escaped.
9. The
newspaper did not accept that the report was insensitive or identified the complainant.
As such, it did not consider that the complainant had any standing to complain
under Clause 4, and so there was no breach.
10. The
newspaper further argued that there was a clear public interest in the article,
including the photograph and information under complaint, particularly in the
context of the Grenfell Tower fire. It said that the article formed part of the
publication’s ongoing ‘Hidden Housing Scandal’ campaign on the developing
cladding scandal, arguing that it had a responsibility to ensure that the risks
posed to residents were fully investigated, publicised, and those responsible
held to account. In this context, the newspaper said its senior editorial team
had considered, prior to publication, that the article and the disputed image
was proportionate to, and serving of, the public interest.
11.
Notwithstanding this position, upon receipt of the complaint, the newspaper
removed the disputed photograph from the online article as a gesture of
goodwill.
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
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.
The
Public Interest
There
may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in
the public interest. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
· Detecting or exposing crime, or the
threat of crime, or serious impropriety.
· Protecting public health or safety.
· Protecting the public from being
misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
· Disclosing a person or organisation’s
failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which they are
subject.
· Disclosing a miscarriage of justice.
· Raising or contributing to a matter of
public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or
incompetence concerning the public.
· Disclosing concealment, or likely
concealment, of any of the above.
There is
a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
The
regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public
domain or will become so.
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
Findings
of the Committee
12. The
Committee recognised the distress the fire had caused the complainant and the
other residents of New Province Wharf.
13.
Clause 2 (Privacy) states that everyone is entitled to respect for their
private and family life, including their home. The complaint centred on two key
concerns: that an individual had entered the complainant’s flat without consent
in order to take the photograph of the interior of his home, and that the
publication of this photograph along with the address of his flat represented
an intrusion into the complainant’s private life.
14. The
Committee noted that the complainant and the publication held conflicting
positions as to whether the photograph had been captured from inside the flat
or through an open doorway from the corridor. The primary question for the
Committee, however, was not the precise location from which the photograph had
been taken, but rather whether any intrusion had taken place into the
complainant’s privacy through its taking and publication. The Committee was not
in a position to determine categorically the location in which the photograph
had been taken, and – because of the publication’s obligation to protect the
confidentiality of its source – it did not have full details of the
circumstances in which it had been taken.
Notwithstanding this, the Committee made clear that it did not accept
the newspaper’s position in relation to this point.
15.
Nonetheless, the Committee concluded that the taking and publication of the
photograph did not constitute an unjustified intrusion into the complainant’s
privacy, for the following reasons. First, given the extent of the fire damage,
the photograph of the room revealed very limited detail about the interior of
the flat and the nature of the home, beyond the scale of the damage, which
included the destruction of internal walls, appliances, and other possessions.
Second, the article did not name the complainant, nor did it reveal any
particular information about the complainant’s private life. On this basis, the
Committee did not consider that the publication of the photograph represented
an intrusion into the complainant’s private life. In any event, the Committee
noted the considerable public interest in demonstrating the extent and impact
of the fire. There was no breach of Clause 2.
16. The
Committee next considered whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation
of privacy in relation to his address being reported as the source of the fire.
The complainant was not identified in the article as the owner of the apartment
where the fire had started, so only those already aware of his address would be
in a position to associate the complainant with the property. Furthermore, the
fire had affected many people within the building so the source of that fire
could not be considered information over which the complainant had a reasonable
expectation of privacy. The publication of the flat number in these
circumstances did not represent an intrusion into the complainant’s private
life. There was no breach of Clause 2.
17. The
Committee acknowledged the distress that the publication of the article had
caused the complainant. However, Clause 4 relates to whether the publication of
information had been handled sensitively; it does not seek to prevent reporting
of distressing events. The fire, which had affected multiple flats within the
building, was clearly a matter of public interest, relating, as it did, to
questions of public health and safety, and contributed to the ongoing public
debate surrounding the safety of apartment blocks in the wake of the Grenfell
Tower fire. The newspaper was fully entitled to report the incident and, while
the article under complaint covered the details extensively, it did not do so
in an insensitive manner. There was no breach of Clause 4.
Conclusions
18. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
19. N/A
Date
complaint received: 15/05/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/11/2021
Back to ruling listing