Decision of the Complaints Committee 06154-15 Macugowska
v Coventry Telegraph
Summary of complaint
1. Agnieszka Macugowska complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Coventry Telegraph breached Clause 1
(Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an online article headlined “Vain fraudster used
other people’s bank cards to pay for beauty treatment at clinic”, published on
4 June 2015.
2. The article reported that the complainant had pleaded
guilty to three of five fraud charges; she had used other people’s bank details
to pay for vouchers for beauty treatments. It said she had been ordered to do
150 hours of unpaid work, and to pay £1,200 in costs and £367 in compensation.
3. The complainant said she had pleaded guilty to three
fraud charges in order to retrieve her passport, which had been confiscated and
which she needed in order to return home for an urgent family matter. She said
she was, in fact, not guilty: she had not stolen bank details; she had been
sold £550 of vouchers by an unknown individual. She also denied that upon her
arrest, she had given a false name and attempted to conceal her identification
documents.
4. In addition, the complainant said that the publication of
her address had put her safety at risk, and the report that she had collapsed
during the trial had disclosed private information about her. She noted that
the article had also referred to her previous conviction, which was spent.
5. The newspaper said it was not for it to decide whether
the complainant had been guilty of the offences. It was its role to accurately
report what had been heard in court. It said the complainant’s address and the
fact that she had collapsed during the proceedings had been referred to in
court. With regards to the details of her arrest, the newspaper said that the
court had heard that the complainant had told the police that her name was
“Anna Anders” and had tried to conceal her driving licence; it provided the
reporter’s contemporaneous notes to support this position.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. 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. In cases involving the
Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
iii. The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish
clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
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.
iii. It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private
places without their consent. Note - Private places are public or private
property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clause 9 (Reporting of crime)
i. Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of
crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are
genuinely relevant to the story.
ii. Particular regard should be paid to the potentially
vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime. This
should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
Findings of the Committee
Note of the Committee
7. Following the conclusion of IPSO’s investigation into the
complaint, and during the Committee’s consideration of the matter, IPSO was
informed by the complainant’s representative, Sandra Macugowska, that the
complainant had died. The representative requested that the Committee continue
its consideration of the matter and to issue its decision.
Findings of the Committee
8. The complainant had pleaded guilty to three fraud
charges. The newspaper had been entitled to report details of the conviction,
despite the complainant’s contention that she was innocent. The complainant
might now dispute the entire basis of her conviction, but the newspaper had
reported it and her sentence accurately.
9. While the complainant disputed that the court had heard
that she had given a false name and concealed her driving licence upon arrest,
the newspaper had provided the reporter’s notes, taken in court, to support its
position that this had been heard in court. The Committee was satisfied that
there was no failure to take care over the article’s accuracy; and no
significant inaccuracies were identified by the complaint. The complaint under
Clause 1 was not upheld.
10. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern regarding
the publication of her partial address. However, this information had been
given in open court and was not private. Similarly, the fact the complainant
had collapsed during the proceedings had been referred to in court and was not
private.
11. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern regarding
the reference to her spent conviction. However, a conviction is a matter of
public record. There was no breach of Clause 3.
12. Clause 9 is intended to protect friends or relatives of
individuals accused or convicted of crime, or children who witness or are
victims of crime from identification in the press. The complaint did not engage
the terms of this Clause.
Conclusions
13. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 07/10/2015
Date decision issued: 01/02/2016