Decision of the Complaints Committee 05318-19 Storey v
Oxford Mail
Summary of Complaint
1. Sue Storey complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Oxford Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 4
(Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Schoolboy, 13 found hanging” published on 13 March 2019.
2. The article, which began on page one and then continued
on page two, reported on the opening of the inquest into the death of a 13 year
old child. On the second page of the article, a quotation from the coroner was
included which said that the child had a “previously well-known mental health
history”. The article included a photograph of the child at a school sports
event.
3. The section of the article which appeared on page two
also appeared online in much the same form with the headline “Inquest opens
into death of Didcot schoolboy Harry Storey”.
4. The complainant, the mother of the child who died, said
that the article inaccurately reported that her child had a “previously
well-known mental health history”. While not present at the inquest, she said
her child had no mental health issues, and reporting this had caused her and
her family much distress. During IPSO’s investigation, the complainant said
that coroner had confirmed that he had in fact said that her son had “no known
mental health history”, and provided a recording of the proceedings to show
this. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 4. She said
that the prominent headline and photograph of her child was inappropriate and
unnecessary, and had not been published with her knowledge or consent. She also
said that details of how her son had died had not been communicated to teachers
or students at the school; by publishing these details in the article, it had
caused her and her family much distress. The complainant disputed that they
were made aware that the Oxford Mail specifically would be attending the
inquest, although they acknowledged that the media could attend the open
proceedings.
5. The publication apologised for the distress caused. It
said that it was contacted directly by the complainant in relation to the same
story appearing in a sister title. At this point, in the absence of the
recording of the inquest, the publication maintained that the article was
accurate because it was reflective of the notes taken by the journalist during
proceedings, and had been corroborated in writing by a second journalist from
another news outlet. However, it recognised the distress caused by the quote,
and printed the correction and apology set out below in the next edition of
this sister title on its front and second page. It also amended the online
version of the Oxford Mail article to reflect the complainant’s position. Three
days after it became aware of the complaint against this title, as opposed to
one of its sister titles, it offered to reprint this wording in the Oxford Mail
and offered to add a footnote to the online version of the article, noting the
change which was made at the time of the direct approach. Furthermore, when it
was provided with a recording of the inquest during IPSO’s investigation, it
accepted that the reporter had misheard what the coroner had said. However it
said that its offer of correction was sufficient under the terms of Clause
1(ii).
Front page correction:
“Harry inquest correction
On the front page of last week’s Herald (March 13), we
reported on the inquest opening for Harry Storey. The report incorrectly stated
that Harry had a “well-known mental health history”.”
Page 2 continuation:
“Inquest correction
On the front page of last week’s Herald, we reported the
Harry Storey inquest opening. The report incorrectly stated that Harry had a
“well-known mental health history”. The statement from the coroner was, in
fact, that Harry had “no known mental health history”. We apologise for this
mistake and distress caused to Harry’s family and friends. They would like us
to point out that Harry was a cheerful young man and talented sportsman. Harry’s
family are asking for donations, in lieu of flowers, to the Paediatric
Intensive Care Unit at John Radcliffe Hospital, which cared for Harry.
Donations can be made to [Named Funeral Service] on [Telephone number] or via
[email address]. If you need someone to talk to, Samaritans helpline is open
24/7. Call 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org.”
Online footnote noting the change which had been made:
“An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that
Harry had a ‘well-known mental health history’. The correct line was ‘no
known’. We are happy to make this clear.”
6. The complainant did not accept this offer of correction.
She said that it should apologise for the overall reporting of her son’s death,
and should have appeared in full on the front page, rather than being continued
on page two.
7. The publication did not accept that the article’s
publication had been handled insensitively. It said that it was entitled to
report on inquest proceedings and there was a significant public interest in
this particular case. It said that it did not make any direct approaches to the
family but instead had contacted the police and the school to inform them that
the article would be published, and to ask whether the parents would like to
speak. It also said that following the article, it had ensured that there was
additional training for staff in relation to the reporting of suicide, and
cases involving children. It said that it had contacted the school in relation
to the photograph of the child, which it had taken at a previous sports event.
The school did not respond to say that it, or the family, did not want the
photograph to be published. It said that the only time it had named Harry was
when the inquest opened and his details were publicly available.
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 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.
9. 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.
Findings of the Committee
10. The Committee first wished to express its condolences to
the complainant and her family for the tragic loss of her son.
11. Although the article had accurately reported the
contemporaneous notes taken at the inquest, these notes had inaccurately
recorded what was said by the coroner; this was a breach of Clause 1(i). In the
context of an inquest report, inaccurately reporting the circumstances of a
person’s death and the possible contributing medical causes constituted a
significant inaccuracy and required correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
12. The Committee appreciated that the complainant
originally raised concerns to the Editor about a sister title. Three days after
the publication became aware that the complainant had also complained to IPSO
about this article, it offered to publish a correction. This was sufficiently
prompt. The wording of this correction clearly set out the inaccuracy, the
correct position, and apologised to the family for the mistake and the distress
caused. Although not a requirement of Clause 1(ii), the Committee welcomed the
extra steps the publication had taken in response to the sensitive nature of
the inaccuracy: printing a tribute from the family to the child; pointing
readers to the family’s requests for funeral arrangements; and including
contact details for the Samaritans. The publication had offered to print a
correction which began on the front page and continued on page two. Where the
inaccuracy had appeared on page two, this was sufficiently prominent, and,
acknowledging the sensitive and distressing nature of the complaint, the Committee
welcomed the publication’s offer to highlight the correction by trailing it on
the front page. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1(ii).
13. In relation to the online version of the article, this
was amended on receipt of the complainant direct approach regarding its sister
title. The Committee recognised that the publication was under the impression
that this had resolved the complaint; when it became aware that this was not
the case, it offered three days later to note the change made in a footnote
correction in order to comply with Clause 1. This offer made clear the change
that had been made the article, and was offered 3 days after IPSO began its
investigation. These steps were sufficient to satisfy Clause 1(ii), and there
was no breach.
14. Deaths affect whole communities as well as the immediate
family, and there is often widespread interest in the circumstances of a death,
particularly in the sudden death of a child. Although the Committee recognised
that the complainant had found the publication of the article to be
distressing, the terms of Clause 4 specify that its provisions should not
restrict the right to report legal proceedings. In this case, the article was
an inquest report, and did not mock or ridicule the complainant’s son, or go
beyond what was heard at proceedings. The publication had also had permission
to use this photograph from their reporting of a previous event and they had
informed both the school and police liaison that it would be used in order for
them to tell the family so they would not be surprised when it was published.
The photograph of the child simply showed him at a school sports events, and at
the time of publication, his name and information about his death was in the
public domain via the inquest proceedings. As such, reporting this information
did not constitute a breach of Clause 4.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial Action Required
16. The corrections were offered sufficiently promptly, in a
prominent position, and made clear the correct position. These should now be
published to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii). Date complaint received:
14/07/2019
Date complaint received by IPSO: 14/07/2019
Date complaint concluded: 28/02/2020
Back to ruling listing