Decision of the Complaints Committee 05190-15 A man v The
Times
Summary of complaint
1. A man complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation, through a representative, that The Times breached Clause 1
(Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply), Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 4
(Harassment) and Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article published in 2015.
2. The article reported that a defendant had been found not
guilty of an allegation of sexual assault; she had been accused of rubbing her
breasts against the complainant at a party. The alleged offence took place in
Scotland, and the trial had also taken place there. The alleged victim was
named in the report.
3. The article had appeared in the newspaper’s Scottish
edition only, and on the newspaper’s website.
4. The complainant said that his identification in the
article breached Clause 11. He said that he had been assured by the police in
advance that he would not be identified by the media, and the article had
caused him significant upset: it was humiliating to be identified in this way,
and his family and friends had found out about the incident through reading it
in the newspaper. The complainant also said that the publication of his name
revealed private information about him – that he considered himself to be a
victim of sexual assault – and the article therefore breached Clause 3 also.
5. The complainant also said that the article had been
biased towards the defendant, and included claims the defendant had made in
evidence which the complainant said were inaccurate; this breached Clause 1. He
said that he had not been offered a right to reply to the allegations, and that
this breached Clause 2. Lastly, he said that publication of the article
constituted harassment, in breach of Clause 4.
6. When the complainant’s representative contacted the
newspaper directly it removed the article from its website, deleted it from its
databases, and circulated a note to all staff reminding them of their
obligations under both the law and the Editors’ Code, in relation to alleged
victims of sexual assault.
7. The newspaper noted that it had been legally free to name
the complainant, as Scots law does not provide for automatic anonymity for
victims and no order had been in place preventing his identification.
8. While the newspaper conceded that its article was in
breach of the Editors’ Code, it also noted that an argument might be advanced
that identification was justified: there is a public interest in reporting
proceedings heard in open court, and the sheriff’s remarks in dismissing the
case strongly suggested an abuse of process and a waste of public funds. He had
said that “16 months after the incident, the complainer decided to report the
matter to the police. In the meantime, there had been a falling out about
another court case which divided people into camps and caused a lot of acrimony
between them…it’s hard to understand the decision-making process by which it
was found by the Crown to be in the public interest to pursue this case.”
However, the newspaper said that it was not seeking to argue that
identification was justified in this case.
9. The newspaper said that as the proceedings had been heard
in open court, there was no breach of Clause 3.
10. The terms of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, which provides for automatic anonymity for victims of specified sexual offences against the law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, do not apply in this case - despite the material being available to readers in England and Wales on the newspaper’s website - as it was a report of offences against Scottish law.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
(i) The press must
take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information,
including pictures.
(ii) A significant
inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be
corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an
apology published.
(iii) The press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given
when reasonably called for.
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 4 (Harassment)
(i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment
or persistent pursuit.
(ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning,
pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist, nor remain on their
property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must
identify themselves and whom they represent.
Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault)
The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or
publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is
adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.
Findings of the Committee
12. The Editors’ Code prohibits the identification of
victims of sexual assault in almost all circumstances. The protection of the
identities of people who make allegations of sexual assault is of great
importance to society generally, and not just to those individuals at the
centre of ongoing cases, as it is essential in ensuring that other victims are
not dissuaded from reporting sexual offences to the police, for fear of
unwanted publicity. The provisions of the Code apply as soon as a person
complains that they are a victim of a sexual assault, regardless of whether the
defendant is acquitted or the allegation is later withdrawn. The protections of
Clause 11 exist independently of legal proceedings, and a later finding by the
court that a defendant is not guilty is not relevant to whether the accuser is
covered by Clause 11, although this could be relevant to the Committee’s
consideration of whether identification was adequately justified.
13. The terms of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
did not apply in this case, and no order preventing identification of the
complainant had been imposed. The newspaper had been legally free to name the
complainant. However, the Code sets out a more stringent test than the law in
that, regardless of the legal position, publications may not name victims of
sexual assault unless there is “adequate justification” to do so. This
justification must be a compelling one in order to outweigh the general public
interest in preserving victims’ anonymity.
14. The Committee did not accept the newspaper’s argument
that the remarks made by the sheriff could justify identification of the
complainant. The fact remained that the case had been taken forward to trial by
the prosecuting authorities, and there was no finding that the complainant had
acted improperly in making the accusation. Neither the acquittal nor the
sheriff’s comments affected the complainant’s status as a self-identified
victim of sexual assault. The sheriff’s criticism of the decision to prosecute
would have been insufficient to justify identification of the complainant, and
it was not necessary to name the complainant in order to report this criticism.
The newspaper breached Clause 11.
15. The fact that the complainant considered himself to be a
victim of sexual assault was clearly private information. While the Committee
acknowledged that the information had been heard in open court, the Editors’
Code specifically provides protection to people making allegations of sexual
assault, and standard practice is that victims are not identified. The
inclusion of the complainant’s name in the article represented an unjustified
intrusion into the complainant’s private life, and a breach of Clause 3 of the
Code.
16. The Committee then considered the complainant’s
additional concerns. The newspaper’s role was to accurately report the
proceedings as heard in court; it was not required to independently investigate
the accuracy of the statements heard there. While the complainant evidently
disagreed with some of the claims made by the defendant in court, this
disagreement did not raise a breach of Clause 1. Further, in the absence of any
established inaccuracies an opportunity to reply was not required; there was no
breach of Clause 2.
17. The terms of Clause 4 generally relate to the conduct of
journalists and photographers during the newsgathering process. The concern
that the article represented harassment did not engage the terms of Clause 4.
Conclusions
18. The complaint was upheld under Clause 3 and Clause 11.
Remedial Action Required
19. Having upheld the complaint under Clause 3 and Clause
11, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required, taking
into account the newspaper’s prompt acknowledgement that it had breached the
Code, and the steps already taken by the newspaper in response to the
complaint. The Committee has the power to require the publication of a
correction and/or adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is to
be determined by IPSO. It may also inform the publication that further remedial
action is required to ensure that the requirements of the Editors’ Code are
met.
20. The Committee required the newspaper to publish the
Committee’s ruling upholding the complaint. The article had been published on
page 21 of the newspaper; the adjudication should be published in full on page
21, or further forward. As the article had only been published in the Scottish
edition of the newspaper, the adjudication need only appear in that edition.
The headline of the adjudication should make clear that IPSO has upheld the
complaint, and refer to its subject matter; it must be agreed with IPSO in
advance. The adjudication should also be published on the newspaper’s website,
with a link to the full adjudication appearing with the headline on the
homepage (as it is presented to readers in Scotland) for 24 hours; it should
then be archived online in the usual way.
21. The terms of the adjudication to be published are as
follows:
Following an article published in The Times in 2015 a man
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times
breached Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint and has required The Times
to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.
The article reported that a defendant had been found not
guilty of an allegation of sexual assault; she had been accused of rubbing her
breasts against the complainant at a party. The alleged offence took place in
Scotland, and the trial had also taken place there. The alleged victim was
named in the report.
The complainant said that his identification in the article
breached Clause 11. He also said that the publication of his name revealed
private information about him – that he considered himself to be a victim of
sexual assault – and the article therefore breached Clause 3 also.
When the complainant’s representative contacted the
newspaper directly it removed the article from its website, deleted it from its
databases, and circulated a note to all staff reminding them of their
obligations under both the law and the Editors’ Code, in relation to alleged
victims of sexual assault.
The newspaper said that it had been legally free to name the
complainant. While it conceded that its article was in breach of the Editors’
Code, it also noted that an argument might be advanced that identification was
justified: there is a public interest in reporting proceedings heard in open
court, and the sheriff’s remarks in dismissing the case strongly suggested an
abuse of process and a waste of public funds. He had said that “16 months after
the incident, the complainer decided to report the matter to the police. In the
meantime, there had been a falling out about another court case which divided
people into camps and caused a lot of acrimony between them…it’s hard to
understand the decision-making process by which it was found by the Crown to be
in the public interest to pursue this case.”
However, the newspaper said that it was not seeking to argue that
identification was justified in this case.
The newspaper said that as the proceedings had been heard in
open court, there was no breach of Clause 3.
IPSO’s Complaints Committee said that the Editors’ Code prohibits the identification of victims of sexual assault in almost all circumstances. The newspaper had been legally free to name the complainant. However, the Committee did not accept the argument that the remarks made by the sheriff could justify identification of the complainant. The newspaper breached Clause 11.
Further, the inclusion of the complainant’s name in the article represented an unjustified intrusion into his private life, and a breach of Clause 3 of the Code.
Date complaint received: 17/11/2015
Date decision issued: 27/01/2016