Decision of the Complaints Committee 05157-19 Bashagha v
thesun.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Russol Bashagha complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) and Clause 14 (Confidential
Sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “GAMES MASTER
Love Island’s Maura’s being USED by Marvin as he enjoyed a romantic holiday with
stunning brunette just weeks before entering the villa”, published on 04 July
2019.
2. The article reported on events that had taken place on a
reality TV series. It reported on the opinions of three ex-contestants who had
said that one of the contestants was “playing a game”. The article stated that
the contestant in question had “enjoyed a romantic break with [a] stunning
brunette just weeks before entering the villa”. It contained two photos; the
first of which depicted him and the complainant at a pool party. The
complainant was shown standing behind the contestant wearing a swimming costume
and a pair of glasses. She had a glass in her hand and was posing for the
picture. The second picture was of the complainant at a restaurant and was
captioned “Here’s the woman in question.” The complainant was not named in the
article.
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach
of Clause 1 (Accuracy) as she was not romantically involved with the contestant
in question. She said that they were “good friends from back home” and that
they had not travelled to Dubai together. She said she had travelled to Dubai
for a business trip and the pair had met there, had attended a pool party and
had gone out for dinner. She said that there was no basis for the newspaper to
characterise their encounter as a “romantic holiday”; the newspaper had
“fabricated a story”. She also said that the publication had used her image in
an article that was “completely unrelated” to her.
4. The complainant also raised concerns that the newspaper had
published a picture of her without her consent in breach of Clause 2 (Privacy).
She accepted that the photos had been taken from the public Instagram account
of the contestant, but said that publication of the images by the newspaper had
caused her ‘distress’. She also expressed concern that she was pictured wearing
a swimming costume; this had intruded into her private life. The complainant
noted that the article had also appeared on Snapchat.
5. The complainant also expressed concern that the publication had
intruded into grief and shock in breach of Clause 4 as reference to her in the
article had left her feeling distressed. She also said that the article had
breached Clause 14 (Confidential Sources).
6. The publication did not accept that it had breached Clause 1.
It said that while it appreciated the complainant’s position that she and the
contestant were both just friends, a break between them to a city popular with
couples could be described as “romantic”.
7. The publication also denied that there had been a breach of
Clause 2. It said that the photos had been provided by a news agency and that
the complainant had not been named in the article. It also stated that all
pictures of her were removed as soon as she asked for them to be taken down.
8. Notwithstanding its position, the publication offered to remove
reference to a “romantic holiday” from the article as well as publishing a
footnote at the bottom of the article that was to read:
“A previous version of this article said that (named man) had been
on a ‘romantic holiday’ with an unnamed woman a few weeks before entering the
Love Island villa. We have now been informed that (named man) and the woman
were just friends and are happy to set the record straight”.
9. The publication rejected the complaints under both Clause 4 and
Clause 14 as they did not believe that they were relevant to the complaint and
so were not engaged.
Relevant Code Provisions
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 corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate —
an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as
required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should
be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
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 and 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 14 (Confidential Sources)
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential
sources of information.
Findings of the Committee
10. It was not in dispute that the complainant had been pictured
with a man “just weeks” before he appeared in a reality TV show, as reported in
the article. However, based on the two photos, the newspaper had reported as
fact that the two had been on a “romantic holiday”. The newspaper had not taken
any further steps to establish the accuracy of this position. In these
circumstances, the Committee was not satisfied that the publication had taken
sufficient care not to publish inaccurate information; there was a breach of
Clause 1(i) on this point. The article misrepresented the nature of the
relationship between the complainant and the contestant, representing a
significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
11. The publication had offered to publish a correction and the
Committee considered that the wording offered had identified the inaccuracy,
set out the correct position and was offered promptly when the publication
became aware of the complaint. This was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause
1(ii).
12. In relation to Clause 2, the Committee noted that the photo
had been taken from the public page of a social media profile which had over
61,000 followers. It had been taken in a public place and the complainant was
not engaged in any private activity. Therefore, the complainant had no
reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the photograph and the
publication was entitled to publish the image without the complainant’s
consent. There was no breach of Clause 2.
13. The Committee noted that the complainant had raised complaints
under Clause 4 and Clause 14. Clause 4 generally relates to the sensitivity of
the approaches journalists make to, and the information they publish about
individuals who have been bereaved or are in state of shock following a
distressing event. As the complaint did not relate to this, there was no breach
of Clause 4. Clause 14 relates to the moral obligation that journalists have to
protect their confidential sources. The complaint did not relate to this and
therefore there was no breach of Clause 14.
Conclusion
14. This complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action
15. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what
remedial action should be required.
16. The publication had offered to publish a correction in a
prominent position and sufficiently promptly as to meet the requirements of
Clause 1(ii). This should now be published to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii).
Date complaint received: 05/07/2019
Date decision issued: 04/12/2019