· Decision of the Complaints Committee 05599-15 Watson v Sunday Mirror
Summary of
complaint
1. Colin Watson complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Sunday Mirror breached Clause 4 (Harassment) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice on 8 September 2015.
2. The complainant said that a journalist working for the
newspaper had persisted in telephoning his home after being asked to desist.
3. The complainant said that the journalist had called
his home telephone on three occasions. On the first occasion, the complainant had
answered the call and, believing it to be a sales call, had hung up. On the
second occasion, the journalist had asked whether someone with what the
complainant described as a “protracted hard-to-remember moslem name” lived at
the complainant’s address. The complainant told him that no one of that name
had ever been resident at his address, that it was none of his business who
lived in his house, and that he suspected the journalist was researching a
story with a racist agenda. He told the journalist to “fuck off” and then hung
up the telephone. The journalist then immediately called back; after the
telephone was answered by the complainant’s wife, the journalist claimed that
he wanted to explain the reason why he was calling. The complainant’s wife asked
him his name and repeated their request not to be contacted; she then ended the
call.
4. The newspaper did not believe that the journalist’s
actions amounted to harassment. The journalist had been researching Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad’s links to Britain, and had been told that the name
Bashar al-Assad had been registered at the home owned by the complainant; this
was worthy of further investigation. When the first call had ended abruptly,
the journalist had assumed that there had been a problem with the line, and
called back. The complainant then implied that the journalist had not reached
the person for whom he was looking and accused the journalist of having a
“racist agenda”, ending the call by telling the journalist that he should “now
fuck off”. The journalist was concerned that his intentions had been
misunderstood; he therefore called again to explain the reasons for his
enquiries and to apologise for any offence that may have been caused. The
complainant’s wife answered the call, and the journalist identified himself
when requested and tried to explain why he had been calling. He did not persist
in asking questions regarding the story. The complainant’s wife told him that
neither she nor her husband wished to speak with him; the journalist assured
the complainant’s wife that he would not call again. No further calls had been
made.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. Clause 4 (Harassment)
i) Journalist 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.
Findings of the Committee
6. It was apparent that there had been some
misunderstanding during the second telephone call. On the complainant’s own
account, he had not recognised the name of the individual about whom the
journalist was seeking information. He had assumed that the journalist was
pursuing a racist line of enquiry, accused him of doing so, and had told him to
“fuck off”.
7. Clause 4 (ii) prohibits journalists from persistent
attempts to contact an individual once they have been asked to desist. That
request need not be framed in precise language; in this instance, the words
“fuck off” were clearly sufficient to communicate to the journalist the
complainant’s desire to be left alone. In ruling whether the Code was breached
by any subsequent contact, the Committee considered the specific circumstances
of the case, as well as the purpose of Clause 4, which is to prevent
harassment.
8. In light of the evident misunderstanding, the
Committee accepted that the journalist wanted to clarify why he was calling. It
was possible that the complainant might have been willing to assist the
journalist once the purpose of the call had been explained. The Committee also
accepted that the journalist would want to clarify his position in response to
the allegation of racism.
9. There was no suggestion that the journalist had acted
in a way that was aggressive or intimidatory, on the single occasion where he
had conversed with the complainant. The alleged harassment comprised two calls
in quick succession, and did not constitute persistent pursuit: the complainant
accepted that the journalist did not repeat his earlier questions in the final
call. Neither had the journalist been calling to put to the complainant an
allegation which might foreseeably cause the complainant distress or anxiety;
the journalist’s query did not concern the complainant directly.
10. In the full circumstances, the journalist’s attempt
to clarify the reasons for his call did not amount to the type of conduct which
Clause 4 seeks to prevent. There was no breach of the Code.
Conclusions
11. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 11/09/2015
Date decision issued: 24/11/2015