Decision of the Complaints Committee 05494-19 The Brexit
Party, Oakeshott, and Tice v The Sunday Times
Summary of Complaint
1. The Brexit Party, Isabel Oakeshott, and Richard Tice
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday
Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in an article headlined “Trump leak scandal engulfs Brexit Party”,
published on 14 June 2019.
2. The article, which started on the front page, was
subheadlined “Police close in on ‘Eurosceptic Philby’ in Whitehall”. It
followed the publication of leaked diplomatic cables, in which the then-British
ambassador to the United States, Kim Darroch, criticised the President of the
US, leading to the ambassador’s resignation; the story about the cables and
their content was broken by Ms Oakeshott, a journalist.
3. The article under complaint reported that Mr Tice, the
chairman of the Brexit Party, was “embroiled” in the scandal “as it emerged
that he is in a relationship with the writer whose story brought down Britain’s
ambassador to Washington”, a reference to Ms Oakeshott. It went on to note that
“security sources said a suspect had been identified for the leaks amid ‘panic’
in Whitehall that a ‘pro-Brexit Kim Philby’ figure has been trying to undermine
officials not deemed supportive enough of leaving the EU”. It said that “as police
closed in on the mole”, “friends” of Ms Oakeshott confirmed that she had been
in a relationship since last year with Mr Tice. While noting that “Tice and
Oakeshott both denied he had played any role in the leak or in the handling of
the documents”, it claimed that “news of the relationship will fuel the belief
of Darroch’s allies that he was brought down by conspirators keen to replace
him with a ‘pro-Brexit businessman’”. It quoted an anonymous “British diplomat”
saying “It feels like there are a lot of Brexit Party-Faragist fingerprints
around this”. It quoted an anonymous “friend of the couple” who acknowledged
the relationship and commented “No doubt this will fuel conspiracy theories,
but [Tice] categorically was not involved in obtaining or handling the
information, nor has he seen it”. It also reported that when the cables were
leaked, Mr Tice and another high-profile Brexit Party campaigner called for the
ambassador to be sacked. The print article also reported Ms Oakeshott had “left
her husband” and named her husband and his occupation.
4. The article also appeared online on the same day under
the same headline. This version of the article was substantially the same as
the print article, but also included a comment from Ms Oakeshott which stated
“Oakeshott said: ‘Richard had nothing to do with the cables. He has never seen
them, never handled them and was not involved in acquiring them.’” This version
did not reference her husband by name, or report that Ms Oakeshott had “left”
him.
5. All the complainants said that the article was inaccurate
as it alleged that the Brexit Party and Mr Tice were “embroiled” in a scandal.
It said that reporting on this scandal suggested that the Brexit Party was
involved in the theft and the leak of the documents. They said that there was
no evidence to support this, and the article made clear that there was no tie
to the complainants; therefore the headline was not supported by the text. They
also said that it was inaccurate to say that the Brexit Party was involved in
any scandal involving the leaked documents.
6. Ms Oakeshott additionally said that the article breached
Clause 1 because it reported “she and Tice have been in a relationship since
last year and that she had left her husband”. She said this gave the misleading
impression that Mr Tice played a role in the breakdown of her marriage.
7. Ms Oakeshott also said that the online version of the
article was inaccurate as it contained a direct quote from her. She said this
suggested inaccurately that she had given this quote directly to the publication,
when in fact she had given the quote to another publication. She said this led
to the misleading impression that she cooperated with the writing of The Sunday
Times’ article. She said it was inaccurate not to report the source of this
quote.
8. All three complainants also complained that they had not
been contacted prior to publication of the article, which they said breached
Clause 1. They only knew of the article’s intended publication after a separate
source had told Ms Oakeshott about it and she had contacted a journalist at the
newspaper.
9. Mr Tice and Ms Oakeshott each complained that the article
represented an intrusion into their privacy in breach of Clause 2. Mr Tice said
that the article reported on his relationship with Ms Oakeshott; he had a
reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to this information. Ms Oakeshott
said that the article intruded into her privacy as it named her husband; she
said that because he was not a public figure, she had a reasonable expectation
of privacy as to his name and profession.
10. The publication did not accept any breach of the Code
and denied that the story implied that the Brexit Party had a part in the theft
or leak of the documents. It said that the headline and text of an article must
be read together. The headline indicated that there was a connection between
the Brexit Party and the leak, and this connection was explained in the text of
the article by the relationship between Mr Tice and Ms Oakeshott. The leaking
of the documents could clearly be described as a “scandal”, and the Brexit
Party could be said to be “embroiled” in the scandal due to the relationship
between Mr Tice and Ms Oakeshott. Its story did not suggest that Mr Tice was
the “mole” being sought. There was a significant public interest in the story
of how the cables had come into the public domain. It was relevant that Mr Tice
had “spoken out” against Mr Darroch after the publication of the cables. It
noted that Ms Oakeshott did not deny having discussed details of the earlier
cables with Mr Tice before publication. The article made several references to
Mr Tice’s denial of having been involved, including via Twitter. It did not
accept that the headline was not supported by the text.
11. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to
report that Ms Oakeshott had “left her husband”. It also disagreed that this
implied that Mr Tice was the reason for the breakdown of her marriage. It had
also reported that they had “separated”.
However, it had agreed to remove this reference on the evening of
publication in the online version of the article at the request of Ms
Oakeshott.
12. The publication denied that it had breached Clause 1 by
not contacting the complainants prior to publication. It said Ms Oakeshott had
been aware that the story would be run and that she had said another
publication was going to run a similar story. In addition, it said that she had
supplied a quote to a journalist working for the same newspaper that she had
asked to be attributed to “a friend of” herself and Mr Tice; this was the
quotation used in the story, which included the “categorical denial” that Mr
Tice was involved in the leak.
13. The publication also did not accept that it had breached
Mr Tice’s privacy. It said that there was a public interest in disclosing this
relationship that outweighed any reasonable expectation of privacy that Mr Tice
might have. It had also published a quote that was provided by Ms Oakeshott,
though published as from a friend, which acknowledged that “[i]t is no secret
that Isabel and Richard are in a relationship”.
14. The publication also denied that Ms Oakeshott’s privacy
had been breached by naming her husband. It said that identifying Ms Oakeshott
would have automatically identified her husband; the fact of the relationship
was not private. It further considered that Ms Oakeshott’s acceptance of the
publication of the fact of the relationship with Mr Tice undermined her claim
to privacy. It did, however, remove her husband’s name from the online version
of the article at Ms Oakeshott’s request.
Relevant Clause 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.
The Public Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they
can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression
itself.
3. The regulator will consider the extent to which material
is already in the public domain or will become so.
4. 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
15. It was accepted that the controversy over the leaking of
the cables could reasonably be described as a “scandal”: the dispute was over
whether it was inaccurate or misleading for the newspaper to report that the
scandal had “engulfed” the Brexit Party, and whether the article had been
otherwise misleading, in particular over whether it had carried the inaccurate
implication that Mr Tice had a role in the leak.
16. The Committee carefully considered the newspaper’s
justification for its claim that the Chairman of the Brexit Party had been
“embroiled” in the scandal, and the claim that the scandal had “engulfed” the
Party. It noted that, in the first
paragraph of the article, the newspaper had set out the basis for making these
claims, namely that Ms Oakeshott, who was the journalist who broke the story,
was in a relationship with the Chairman of the party. In these circumstances, the Committee concluded
that it was not inaccurate or misleading for the newspaper to present its
position that the fact of the relationship between the two created a link which
had drawn the Party into the scandal. The Committee did not establish a breach
of Clause 1 (i) on this point. The Committee further decided that the article
did not make the claim that Mr Tice had played a role in the leak; while it
reported that an unnamed diplomat had made a
remark that “it feels like there are a lot of Brexit Party-Faragist fingerprints
around this”, the article explained that the suspect is believed to be “in
Whitehall”, is a “civil servant who had access to historic Foreign Office
files”, and is a "Kim Philby figure”, a reference to a spy who had worked
in the British intelligence services. These references could not reasonably be
understood to be references to Mr Tice who is not a civil servant and does not
work in Whitehall or for the intelligence services. The article also included
repeated references to the denials of Mr Tice and Ms Oakeshott that he had played
any role. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
17. The article explained that Ms Oakeshott and her husband
had separated and that she was now in a relationship with Mr Tice. The one
reference to Ms Oakeshott having “left her husband” did not imply that Mr Tice
was involved or responsible for the separation. The article made no comment on
the reason for the separation. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point,
however the Committee welcomed the publication’s willingness to remove this reference
from the online version of the article.
18. Ms Oakeshott also said it was inaccurate to include a
quote in the article which she had given to another publication without
attributing it to that publication, as this suggested she had willingly
contributed to the article. However, the inclusion of the quotation, in
circumstances where she had given the quote and its accuracy was not disputed,
did not lead to a breach of Clause 1.
19. All three complainants said it was a breach of Clause
1(i) that none of them had been formally contacted by the newspaper prior to
publication. In some cases, it may be necessary for publications to contact
parties prior to publication in order to avoid a breach of Clause 1, but there
is no freestanding requirement to do so. In this instance, the article was
reporting on a number of factual matters which were not in dispute, including
the existence of the relationship which Ms Oakeshott had confirmed prior to
publication. Further, Ms Oakeshott and Mr Tice’s position that Mr Tice had no
role in the leaks was included prominently in the article. There was no breach
of Clause 1.
20. Mr Tice said that the article represented an intrusion
into his privacy by reporting his relationship with Ms Oakeshott. The fact of a relationship is generally not
information about which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the existence of the relationship
had been placed into the public domain by Ms Oakeshott who had told the
newspaper about the relationship by providing the statement: “[i]t is no secret
that Isabel and Richard are in a relationship”. Although she had expressed the
wish that the quote was not attributed to her, given the disclosure the
relationship could not reasonably be considered private. There was no breach of
Clause 2 on this point.
21. Ms Oakeshott further said that the article intruded into
her privacy as it named her husband. The marital status of an individual, and
the identity of the person to whom someone is married, is a matter of public
record and therefore there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation
to this information. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.
Conclusions
22. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial action required
23. N/A
Date complaint received: 20/07/2019
Date decision issued: 13/01/2020
Back to ruling listingThe Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
