Resolution Statement 07016-19 Fryer v Great Yarmouth
Mercury
Summary of Complaint
1. Ashley-Jane Fryer complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Great Yarmouth Mercury breached Clause 2
(Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “‘Tears
burst out of my eyes’ – mobility scooter donation praised by woman”, published
on 23 October 2019.
2. The article reported that a woman had been gifted a
mobility scooter by a local company. The article contained quotes from a letter
the woman had sent to the company to thank it, as well as details of her
health, and a photograph of her sitting on the scooter.
3. The article appeared online under the same headline and
was substantially the same as the print article.
4. The complainant said that the article breached of Clause
2 of the Editors’ Code. She said that although she initially gave permission
for her letter to be published, she did not give permission for her photograph
to be used. Furthermore, when the article and photograph were published online,
she said that she spoke to the publication because she had changed her mind,
and did not want the article to appear in print. She said that she was assured
that it would not appear in print, however, it did in the following week’s
edition. She said that this caused her much distress.
5. The publication apologised for any upset and distress
that it had caused the complainant, however it did not accept that it had
breached the Code. The publication said it had received both the letter of
thanks and the photograph from the mobility scooter company for the purposes of
publication. It had then contacted the complainant to confirm that she was
happy for her letter to be published; she did not state that she did not want
the photographs to be published. When the complainant contacted the publication
after the article appeared online, it promptly removed the photograph. The
publication did accept that the complainant had told it that she did not want
the article to appear in the print version of the newspaper; it said that it
then appeared in print due to an internal misunderstanding. It understood that
had upset the complainant, and offered to publish an apology in print or
online.
Relevant Clause Provisions
6. 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.
Mediated Outcome
7. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
8. The publication offered to write a private letter of
apology to the complainant and reached a private arrangement in order to settle
her complaint.
9. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to her satisfaction.
10. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the
Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been
any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 09/09/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/10/2019