Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 06731-20 Gilbert v the Northern Echo
Summary
of Complaint
1. Michael
Gilbert, personally and on his wife’s behalf, complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that the Northern Echo breached Clause 1
(Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) and
Clause 14 (Confidential sources) in an article headlined “Licence appeal from
bus driver involved in fatal crash” published on 23 May 2020.
2. The
article reported that “A bus driver [the complainant] involved in a fatal crash
is trying to get his driving licence back two years after being banned as a
result”. It stated that “Teesside Crown Court heard” that the complainant was
“attempting to reduce his three year driving ban to enable him to take on more
hours at work and help out his ill wife”. The article reported that the
barrister representing the complainant had said that “his family circumstances
had changed due to his wife’s illness making it impossible for her to work or
drive”; and that his “current employers, [a named supermarket], said that they
were unable to give him extra work unless he had his driving licence”.
3. The
article appeared online in a substantially similar format.
4. The
complainant said that the article breached Clause 1 as his barrister had not
said that “his wife’s illness mak[es] it impossible for her to work or drive”.
Rather, his barrister had said that his wife’s illness was making it
increasingly difficult for her to work. The complainant also said that
information about his place of work and his wife’s medical condition should
note have been published, and doing so breached Clauses 2 and 14, and caused
distress to his family in breach of Clause 4. However, he accepted that this
information had been made public in court.
5. The
publication accepted that the complainant’s barrister had actually said her
condition makes it increasingly difficult for her to work rather than
“impossible for her to work or drive” as the article had reported. It therefore
accepted that it had inaccurately summarised the barrister’s remarks, amended
this reference and offered, during direct correspondence with the complainant,
to publish a clarification. The publication proposed that the clarification
would appear footnoted to the online article and in print on page 2. 17 days
into IPSO’s investigation it proposed the following wording:
An
article published by The Northern Echo on May 22 (online) and May 23 (print)
regarding an application by bus driver Michael Gilbert to reduce his three-year
driving ban following his involvement in a fatal collision in Darlington, said
his family’s circumstances had changed due to his wife’s medical condition
making it impossible for her to work or drive. We are happy to make clear that
his representative, [named person], actually said her illness was making it
increasingly difficult for her to work or drive. We apologise for the error.
6. The
complainant did not accept this offer.
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 correction,
promptly and with due prominence, and –where appropriate- an apology published.
In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
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.
9. 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.
10. Clause
14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists
have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.
Findings
of the Committee
11. The
publication had accepted it had misreported the comments of the complainant’s
barrister and therefore had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate
information. There was a breach of Clause 1(i).
12. The
inaccuracy was significantly misleading as to the complainant’s wife’s ability
to go about her everyday life and the basis of the complainant’s application
for the return of his driving license. Therefore, the inaccuracy required
correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii). The correction offered by the
publication was sufficient. It identified the inaccuracy and put the correct
position on record; it was prompt given the publication’s efforts to resolve
the complaint at an early stage; and was sufficiently prominent, appearing as
footnote to the amended article online and in print on page 2. There was no
breach of Clause 1(ii).
13. The
complainant had confirmed that details of his wife’s condition and his employer
had been made public in open court. In such circumstances, the publication was
entitled to report this. Reporting public court proceedings forms part of the
important principle of open justice. There was no reasonable expectation of
privacy over this information and no breach of Clause 2.
14. The
complainant had said that the publication of the same information had
constituted a breach of Clause 14. However, Clause 14 relates to the
identification of confidential sources of information. Where the complainant’s
concern did not relate to this -and was instead that the information itself was
confidential- Clause 14 was not engaged.
15. The
complainant had said that the publication of the same information had caused him
and his family distress in breach of Clause 4. However, Clause 4 does not
restrict the right to report legal proceedings. Where this information had been
made public in court, there was no breach of Clause 4.
Conclusions
16. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial
Action Required
17.
Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action
should be required.
18. The
publication had offered to publish a correction in a prominent position and
sufficiently promptly as to meet the requirements of Clause 1(ii). This should
now be published to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii).
Date
complaint received: 25/05/2020
Date decision issued: 22/10/2020
Back to ruling listing