Decision of the Complaints Committee 06418-19 A Woman v
thesun.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2
(Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “’I have no
choice’ Single mum, 29, ‘forced to become phone SEX WORKER after Universal
Credit cuts almost left her homeless” published on 12 August 2019.
2. The article was an interview with a named and pictured
woman who had turned to sex work in order to pay her rent. She was reported as
having said: “I don’t want to do it, it makes me feel sick. But I need to
provide a better life for my five-year-old son”. The article explained that,
following an operation and having spent time in hospital, the woman lost her
job and then had to rely on Universal Credit payments, which she said were not
enough and meant that she struggled to pay her rent. It reported the sums the
woman received in government benefits and in payment for sex work.
3. The complainant, the woman who had given the interview,
said that the article breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 1 (Accuracy). She
said that the fact that she had a young son, the amount that she received in
government benefits and from sex work, and the operation she had undergone was
all information which she provided for background; she said that she had told the reporter on
the phone that she did not want this information included in the article. The
complainant said that she only provided the amount of money she received in
Universal Credit, because she thought the reporter needed it for background.
She also said that the reporter had promised to call her to let her know what
would be published, but this did not happen. Finally, the complainant also said
that it was inaccurate to say that her son was five years old; in fact he was
four.
4. The publication did not accept that the article
represented a breach of the Code. It said that it was not the case that the
information had been published without the complainant’s consent. She had
spoken freely to the reporter about her health, finances and family, and the
complainant had not made a request, either in writing or over the phone, that
this information not be included in the article. The information about the sums
the complainant received in benefits had been provided by the Department of
Work and Pensions, for the purposes of publication, and only after the
complainant had provided her consent. Furthermore, it said that it was not
credible that there had been such an agreement because details of what led to
the complainant losing her job and her income were very important to the
overall story. It also noted that the complainant had contacted the publication
prior to making a complaint to IPSO, and had raised concerns only about the
inclusion of the sums she received in Universal Credit, and that the article
had misreported her son’s age, which the publication said indicated that there
was no such agreement. The publication did not accept that it was a significant
inaccuracy to report that the complainant’s son was five years old, rather than
four years old. However, as a gesture of goodwill prior to the complainant
contacting IPSO, it amended the article on this point and removed details of
the sums which the complainant received in Universal Credit.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. 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.
Findings of the Committee
6. A person ordinarily has a reasonable expectation of
privacy in respect of information concerning their medical treatment and
personal income. In this case, during an interview with the reporter, the
complainant had provided details of the medical procedure which she had
undergone; the sums she received from Universal Credit and sex work; and the
fact that she had a young son. The
Committee noted that the publication disputed that an agreement had been
reached that this information would not be included in the article. The
Committee considered the screenshots of the messages exchanged between the
complainant and the reporter, which did not indicate that the complainant had
made a request that the information she had provided would not be included.
Further, the information about the sums the complainant received in benefits had
been provided by the DWP, with the complainant’s consent. In these
circumstances, the Committee could not find that the publication of the
information constituted an intrusion into the complainant’s private life
without consent. There was no breach of Clause
2.
7. Reporting that the complainant’s son was five years old,
rather than four years old, was not a significant inaccuracy in the context of
an article which was focussed on the complainant’s experience of Universal
Credit. A correction was not required under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
Conclusions
8. The complaint was not upheld
Remedial Action
9. N/A
Date complaint received: 29/08/2019
Date complaint concluded: 31/01/2020