Decision of the Complaints Committee 06319-19 Docherty v
Evening Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Collette Docherty complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Evening Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause
2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Health chiefs probe sectarian tweets from nurses’ profile”,
published on 24 August 2019.
2. The article reported that an NHS worker was under
investigation by Glasgow’s Health Board for allegedly posting sectarian tweets
that used offensive and homophobic language and that the matter had been
referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). The headline described the
woman as a “nurse” and the article and picture caption described her as a
“nursing assistant”. The article quoted several of the tweets and reported that
they were “posted from the profile of Collette Docherty”. As well as publishing
her full name, the article identified the hospital at which she worked, and the
area where she lived.
3. The article appeared online under the headline “Glasgow
nurse under investigation after sectarian tweets claim” and was substantially
the same as the print article.
4. The complainant said the article was inaccurate; she said
that she was a “healthcare support worker”, not a nurse, and a complaint about
her could not be referred to, or investigated by, the NMC as she was not
regulated by them. She also said it was inaccurate to report that she posted
tweets from a profile in the name of Collette Docherty as her twitter handle
contained only her first name and not her surname.
5. The complainant also said that the article represented an
intrusion into her private life in breach of Clause 2 as it published her full
name; the hospital she worked at; the place where she lived; the fact that she
was under investigation; and her alleged association with the tweets. She said
that she had a reasonable expectancy of privacy in respect of this information
which was not public knowledge until the publication of the article.
6. The complainant also said that an approach by a
journalist and photographer acting on behalf of the Evening Times constituted
harassment in breach of Clause 3. She said that the journalist had knocked on
her door and was accompanied by a photographer. She said that her young
daughter answered the door and the reporter asked her daughter whether she was
in, at which point the complainant came to the door. The reporter introduced
herself and asked the complainant if she wanted to comment on the allegations
regarding the twitter account. The complainant said she then noticed the
photographer, and was concerned that he was taking photographs of her daughter;
at this point she said she would call the police. The complainant said the
photographer and journalist then left.
7. The publication did not accept any breach of the Code. It
said that whilst the headline described the complainant as a “nurse” this was
not inaccurate where the rest of the article made clear she was a “nursing
assistant”. It also said that, to the extent that the description was
inaccurate, it was not significant in the context of the story, which reported
the investigation into the conduct of a healthcare professional. However, the
publication offered to revise her job title to “nursing assistant” in the
headline of the online version of the article.
8. The publication also said that, in relation to the report
that the complainant had been referred to the NMC, it had relied on an email
sent by a senior member of NHS management which stated that the case was being
investigated by the senior nursing team under the NMC. It also contacted the
NMC directly, but was told that it could not disclose details of an
investigation until its conclusion. Following publication of the article, the
publication had contacted the NMC, again, which confirmed that the complainant
was not on its register. The publication did not consider that the report of
the involvement of the NMC was a significant inaccuracy where it was not in
dispute that the complainant was subject to a professional disciplinary
investigation. Nevertheless, it offered to clarify this point in the online
version of the article and to update the article with the status of the
investigation if more information became available.
9. The publication did not accept that the complainant had a
reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information in the
article. The publication said that the complainant had no expectation of
privacy over her full name, her place of work or general location, and even if
she did her workplace and the city she lived in was visible on her twitter
account. The publication said that whilst the fact the complainant was under
investigation may be private, there was a strong public interest in reporting
this which outweighed any right to privacy. Additionally, it said that where
her twitter page was public, used her first name, mentioned her work and had a
photograph of her there was no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her
connection to the tweets. It also noted that her address was publicly available
on the electoral register.
10. The publication provided notes of the interaction that
took place between the complainant, the reporter and the photographer who went
to the complainant’s home. The publication said that the reporter knocked on
the complainant’s front door, with the photographer standing a short distance
away. When the complainant’s daughter answered the door the reporter asked for
the complainant, who came downstairs. The reporter introduced herself and asked
for a comment on the tweets. The complainant asked how the reporter got her
address, and the reporter explained it was on the electoral roll. The
complainant said she would call the police and the reporter and photographer
left. The photographer did not take any photographs of the complainant’s
daughter. The publication said there was no failure to respect the request to
desist, that the exchange was short and polite and that there was therefore no
breach of Clause 3.
Relevant Clause Provisions
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Clause 3 (Harassment)*
i) Journalists 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
property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must
identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must
ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care
not to use non-compliant material from other sources.
14. 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:
i) Detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or
serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health or safety.
iii) Protecting the public from being misled by an action or
statement of an individual or organisation.
iv) Disclosing a person or organisation’s failure or likely
failure to comply with any obligation to which they are subject.
v) Disclosing a miscarriage of justice.
vi) Raising or contributing to a matter of public debate,
including serious cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence
concerning the public.
vii) Disclosing concealment, or likely concealment, of any
of the above.
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.
5. An exceptional public interest would need to be
demonstrated to over-ride the normally paramount interests of children under
16.
Findings of the Committee
15. The article reported that the complainant had been
referred to the NMC. The publication had relied on an email, sent by a senior
member of NHS management, which stated that the case was being investigated by
the senior nursing team under the NMC.
In relying upon the email, there was no failure to take care in
reporting that the NMC was involved. Although the complainant disputed that she
would be subject to regulation by the NMC, it appeared that she had been
referred by her employers for investigation under the terms of the NMC’s code
of practice. The Committee considered that, where it was not in dispute that
the complainant’s conduct was being formally investigated, the difference
between reporting that the investigation was being undertaken by the NHS or the
NMC was not significant. The article made clear the nature of the allegations
for which the complainant was being investigated and the response of her
employer. No significant inaccuracy required correction under Clause 1 (ii).
16. Whilst the headline described the complainant as a
nurse, the article made clear that she was a nursing assistant. The Committee
found that this was not significantly misleading as it was not in dispute that
she was a member of the nursing team at the hospital. Further, where it was not
in dispute that the tweets had been sent from her twitter account, it was not
misleading to report that they had been posted from a twitter profile in her
name. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
17. The Committee found that the complainant did not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of her name; place of work; and
the city where she lived as this information was all publically available.
Additionally, the Committee found that she did not have a reasonable expectation
of privacy in relation to her connection to the tweets, as the complainant had
identified herself on her twitter account by using her first name and a
photograph of herself. The Committee considered that there may be circumstances
in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy over the fact that
they are facing disciplinary proceedings. However, in this instance, her
employer, the body responsible for overseeing disciplinary matters, had
disclosed to the publication that she was under investigation; as a result, the
expectation of privacy which was
reasonable was more limited. Further, there was a public interest in
reporting on the alleged misconduct of someone in the healthcare profession,
and the actions taken by her employer in response to these allegations. In these circumstances, there was no breach
of Clause 2.
18. The complainant and the publication agreed that the
journalist left the property once asked to desist from questioning the
complainant. There was no failure to respect the request to desist, and
therefore no breach of Clause 3(ii). There was no suggestion that the reporter
or photographer had engaged in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit
and, therefore, there was no breach of Clause 3(i).
Conclusion
19. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action
20. N/A
Date complaint received: 26/08/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/02/2020