05653-18 Crichton v Mail Online

Decision of the Complaints Committee 05653-18 Crichton v Mail Online  

Summary of complaint 

1.    David Crichton complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Retired GP ‘tried to hire hitman to kill financial advisor he blamed for £300, 000 loss by finding Chechen Mob site on dark web where he chose option marked ‘kill the b******’”, published on 19 July 2018. 

2.    The article reported that the complainant had been charged with attempting to solicit the murder of an individual and sending malicious communications, which included making a telephone call with the aim of causing the individual to fear that the complainant would take his own life. It reported on the circumstances surrounding the criminal proceedings, including comments made in court by the prosecution that “in interview, [the complainant] was to say he was obsessed with suicide”. The article also reported that “earlier this year [the complainant] was hospitalised after a bicycle crash left him in a critical condition, although he has since made a full recovery”. 

3.    The complainant said that he had not made a full recovery and that he had become severely disabled as a result of the bicycle accident. He said that during court proceedings the judge had stated that he was disabled and required special measures as a result. The complainant said that the misreporting of this information represented a breach of Clause 1 and 4 of the Code. He also said that the article had intruded into his private life, in breach of Clause 2, because it reported that he had been suicidal; he said that this was a private medical matter. 

4.    The publication did not accept that it had breached the Code. It said that the information that the complainant had made a full recovery was based on the images of him attending court. Given the severity of the incident, and the fact that the complainant was able to walk unaided into court, it was assumed by the journalist that he had recovered from his injuries. Following publication, the journalist had informed the publication that there was some pre-trial discussion between the judge and legal teams about how the trial was to proceed. It was mentioned that the complainant was fit to stand trial but still had “some problems” because of the accident, and he was told that if he wished to take a break then this would be granted. The publication said that as this was an informal conversation, the journalist did not take or retain notes and the information was not included in the copy sent to it; it merely had the images to represent the extent of the complainant’s physical recuperation. 

5.    In response to the complainant’s concerns, the publication removed the reference to his “full recovery” from the article. It said that in any event, it was a passing reference and did not materially affect the remainder of the article. The publication said that given that the practical consequences of the complainant not being fully recovered were a short discussion before proceedings began, the removal of this information alone was sufficient. 

6.    The publication said that the article did not state that the complainant had been suicidal, rather it referred to suicide only in the context that it was heard in court. It said that such information was already in the public domain and its publication did not represent an intrusion into the complainant’s private life. 

7.    The publication also did not accept that there was a failure to handle publication sensitively. Nevertheless, it offered to publish the following clarification as a footnote to the online article: 

“A previous version of this article stated that Dr Crichton had made a full recovery after being hospitalised due to a bicycle crash. We have since been advised that, in fact, he has been left with major disabilities from the resulting brain injury and numerous surgeries which followed his severe physical injuries”. 

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. 

v)     A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published. 

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 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 

9.    The publication had based its information that the complainant had made a “full recovery” from his bicycle accident, solely on the fact that the reporter had seen him walk unaided into court. The publication did not take any further steps to corroborate this claim, which represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i). The complainant said that he had in fact been left severely disabled as a result of the bicycle accident. The article was a court report and the information that the complainant had made a “full recovery” had not been referred to as part of the court proceedings, but his circumstances were discussed prior to the proceedings. Given that the article had inaccurately reported a significant claim about the complainant’s health, in the context of a court report, the Committee considered that this was a significant inaccuracy which required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). 

10. Shortly after the publication became aware of the complainant’s concerns, it had offered to publish a correction as a footnote to the article. This correction highlighted the inaccurate information, that the complainant had made a full recovery, and made the correct position clear, that he had been left severely disabled as a result of the accident. The Committee considered that this was sufficient to meet the publication’s obligations as set out under Clause 1 (ii), and there was no further breach of the Code on this point. 

11. The complainant did not dispute that he had been charged with sending a malicious communication, including making a phone call with the intention of making another individual fear that he would commit suicide, or that the prosecution had made the comment in court that he had previously said that he was “obsessed with suicide”. The publication was entitled to report this information which was heard in open court. The Committee did not consider that its publication represented an intrusion into the complainant’s private life, and noted that the article did not report as fact that the complainant was in a suicidal state of mind. There was no breach of Clause 2. 

12. Clause 4 states that in cases involving grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion, and publication handled sensitively. The Committee noted that the issues raised in the article were personal to the complainant. However, the Committee considered that the purpose of Clause 4 is to provide protections to individuals during times of grief or shock, following tragic events or trauma. In this instance, it considered that the complainant had not been in a state of “grief or shock” such as would engage the terms of Clause 4. 

Conclusions 

13. The complaint was upheld in part under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial Action Required 

14. The Committee had established a breach of Clause 1 (i). As such, it considered the remedial action which the publication should be required to undertake in order to remedy the breach. 

15. The publication had promptly offered to publish a clarification as a footnote to the online article. The Committee considered that the clarification was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The clarification should now be published, subject to the complainant’s consent. 

Date complaint received: 20/08/2018

Date decision issued: 15/11/2018