Decision of the Complaints Committee 06470-19 Thompson v
Sunday Life
Summary of Complaint
1. Patrick Thompson complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Sunday Life breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause
2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “EXCLUSIVE
HONEYMOON CASH PLEA FOR CHARITY FRAUDSTER”, published on 1 September 2019.
2. The article reported on a GoFundMe page set up by the
complainant which the publication reported “ask[ed] the public to make
financial donations to allow them to enjoy a honeymoon in 2020”. The article
also reported that this was “shameless” as the complainant’s fiancée had just
pleaded guilty to defrauding a charity she worked for.
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1 as they had not “asked the public” for donations. In fact,
they had only asked those who were invited to their wedding. The complainant
said that the GoFundMe site was private, and deliberately set up so it could
not be searched for on external search engines or on the GoFundMe website. It
was only available to the 96 people invited to the wedding via a password
protected website.
4. The complainant said that the article breached his
privacy under Clause 2 for the same reasons. He said that the GoFundMe site was
only supposed to be available to friends and family who were invited to the
wedding and not the public, therefore he had a reasonable expectation of
privacy regarding this information. He also noted he was not involved in his
fiancée’s court case.
5. The publication did not accept that the Code had been
breached. It said that four Sunday Life employees, who were not invited to the
wedding, had been able to access the GoFundMe page, and could also access a
page requiring bank details to donate.
Nothing in the page’s description said that only wedding guests should
donate, and the page was described as a “fundraiser” rather than a wedding
gift. The publication also said that a reporter had gone to the complainant’s
fiancée’s house in order to get a comment and had left a note explaining that
the story was to be published and inviting the complainant to make a comment,
but had not heard from him. It said it had therefore taken care over the
accuracy of the article. Despite not accepting a breach of Clause 1, the
publication offered a clarification as a gesture of goodwill to be published on
page seven, the same page as the original article:
In an article on September 1 we reported that a GoFundMe
page had been set up to raise funds for a sunshine honeymoon for convicted
charity fraudster [name] and her partner Patrick Thompson and the appeal was
open to the public. Mr Thompson, who organised the fundraiser, has asked us to
point out that he only intended the appeal to be viewed by the couple's wedding
guests. He was not aware that if the GoFundMe campaign link was shared on
social media it could be accessed by anyone who viewed the link. We are happy
to set the record straight.
6. The publication similarly said that it had not breached
Clause 2. It said that even if the website link had only been given to those
invited to the wedding, it had been shared widely on social media and multiple
sources, none of whom were wedding guests, had informed Sunday Life of the
GoFundMe website. It said that GoFundMe made it clear that “private” campaigns
can be seen by anyone with a link and that no password was required to access
the fundraiser page.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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.
8. 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
9. The Committee considered that the publication had taken
reasonable steps to avoid inaccuracy when reporting that the complainant had
‘asked the public’ for donations. It had been told about the GoFundMe website
by multiple sources, and multiple members of staff had been able to access the
website via the link. It had also sent a reporter to the complainant for
comment, and had left a note in order to let the complainant put his position
on record. Furthermore, there was nothing on the GoFundMe page itself which
would suggest that it was only for guests of the wedding to donate to, so it
could be legitimately interpreted as "asking the public" in
circumstances where the link was being shared on social media. The Committee
found that there was no failure to take care not to publish inaccurate
information in breach of Clause 1(i).
10. Following publication, the newspaper was made aware that
the fundraiser had been intended for wedding guests only. As the complainant
had made his position clear, the Committee considered that it should be
reported so that the coverage was not significantly misleading. The
clarification offered by the publication identified the inaccuracy, provided
clarifying information and was offered with due prominence. The clarification
was sufficient under the terms of Clause 1(ii) and should now be published.
11. The Committee considered the nature of GoFundMe pages.
GoFundMe makes it clear that anyone with the website link can access the page.
Further, there was no information which indicated that the page was directed
exclusively at wedding guests and the page had simply asked for donations
towards the complainant's honeymoon. In these circumstances, the Committee did
not consider that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy over
the information which appeared on the page and there was no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusions
12. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
13. The publication should publish the proposed correction
in order not to breach Clause 1(ii).
Date complaint received: 02/09/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/02/2020