Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 07265-21 A man v Hull Daily Mail
Summary
of Complaint
1.
A man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Hull
Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “Appeal as blood trail smeared across
bins, gates and lampposts”, published on 16th June 2021.
2.
The article reported on an appeal for witnesses by police in response to “a
trail of blood smeared” across street furniture in the local area. The article
explained that “[t]he trail of blood led police through several streets”, which
were listed, and that the “blood stains were reported as happening on Sunday
night through to Monday morning”. It also reported that “early on Monday
afternoon” police vehicles gathered in the area “as they appeared to locate a
man who may have been connected with the incidents”. The article explained that
the police “officers surrounded an elderly man, dressed in a blue tracksuit,
who had a heavily-bandaged hand, after finding him sitting at a bus stop
outside a children’s nursery”. It also referenced witnesses who said the man
“appeared ‘intoxicated’ and police were talking calmly to him”. The article
included an image of several police cars parked by a bus stop, with several
officers facing the bus stop. The article quoted posts on social media that
members of the public had made that had called the appearance of blood
“disturbing” and that they “’Hope whose ever the blood belongs too is OK’”
[sic]. Finally, the article included a part of a statement from Humberside
Police which said that “’It is thought that an unknown individual may have
sustained an injury on [a named road] before walking in the direction of [a
named road]. ‘At this stage, there are not thought to have been any crimes
committed, however we are concerned for the welfare of this individual, who may
require medical attention’”.
3.
The article also appeared online under the headline “Blood smeared across
signs, gates, bins and lampposts as police appeal for witnesses”.
4.
The complainant identified himself as the man at the bus stop referred to in
the article. He said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1
because it suggested that he (as the person at the bus stop) was responsible
for the blood smears that appeared across the area, which he denied.
5.
The complainant also said the article was inaccurate because it had reported
that he had “appeared intoxicated”. He stated that he had not been drinking. He also said it was misleading to state he had been found outside a “children’s
nursery” as this made the situation appear worse than was the case. Finally,
the complainant said it was inaccurate to describe him as “elderly” as he was
only in his early fifties.
6.
The complainant said that the article also breached Clause 2 because it had
identified him in connection with the blood being smeared across town. He
explained that people had been able to identify him due to the inclusion of the
image of police officers at the bus stop and the explanation that they were
talking to a man with a bandaged hand and that the article claimed he was
responsible for the blood. He said that many people had walked past as he had
been talking with police at the bus stop. Passers-by had taken photographs of
him that appeared on Facebook and this led to his identification as the
individual claimed to be responsible for the trail of blood.
7.
The publication said it did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said that the
article did not identify the man at the bus stop as being responsible for the
trail of blood. It highlighted, for example, that the article had reported that
police “appeared to locate a man who may have been connected” to the incident,
thereby distinguishing between comment, conjecture, and fact. The focus of the
article had been on reporting the appeal by police for witnesses as well as the
speculation and concern of members of the public. It also stated that there
were no claims that a crime had been committed, but simply that there were
concerns for the man’s welfare.
8.
The publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 1 regarding the
complainant’s other points. It stated that the article had clearly
distinguished the comment regarding intoxication as the speculation of
witnesses. Regarding the statement in the article that the man had been found
outside a nursery, the publication said this was a true factual statement and
so did not constitute a breach of the Code. In relation to the age of the man,
the article said this did not represent a significant inaccuracy and was a
description based on what the reporter had seen. It apologised for any offence
caused.
9.
The publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It argued that the
individual was neither named nor identifiable in the article. It said that the
man had been waiting with the police for a significant period of time and so
would have been seen by members of the public who had passed by the area.
Whilst it did not consider that the article represented a breach, the
publication also said that the article was clearly in the public interest. The
police had stated in its original appeal that there was a concern for the
safety of the individual and that there had been “no wider risk to the public”.
10.
As a gesture of goodwill, and in an attempt to resolve the complaint, the
publication removed the online article and social media posts four days after
the online article had been published.
11.
The complainant did not accept the removal of the online article and social
media posts as a resolution to his complaint.
Relevant
Code Provisions
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 their private and family life, home,
physical and mental 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
12.
The article had not stated as fact that the man at the bus stop was the
individual responsible for the trail of blood that had been left around the
area. Instead, the article reported that
the police had appeared to locate a man who may have been connected with the
incidents; this was distinguished as conjecture, as required by Clause 1 (iv).
Further, the article was reporting on the appeal of police for witnesses and
stated that the person responsible was “an unknown individual”. The article therefore made clear that the
individual responsible had yet to be identified. As such, the Committee did not consider that
the article stated or implied that the individual at the bus stop was the
individual who was responsible for the trail of blood. It concluded that the
publication had taken sufficient care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or
distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
13.
The article had also clearly distinguished the comments regarding the
appearance of the man at the bus stop from fact, stating that “witnesses said
he appeared intoxicated”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point. As it
was not disputed that the man had been found at a bus stop outside a nursery,
including this fact did not make the article significantly inaccurate or
misleading, and so there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point. Regarding the
apparent age of the complainant, the Committee acknowledged the complainant’s
objection to the description of him as “elderly”; however, it was a description
based upon the reporter’s observations and was not a significant detail in the
context of the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
14.
The Committee then considered whether the article identified the complainant as
the man at the bus stop and whether private information about the complainant
had been included in the article. The complainant had said he had received
messages from several people who had been able to identify him; however, the
article did not name him or include an image of him. The only information about
the complainant revealed in the article was a description of his clothing and
the location in which he had been talking to police officers. This information
would not be sufficient to identify the complainant to any readers who were not
already aware of the complainant’s interaction with the police. Furthermore,
the article did not include any information over which he had a reasonable
expectation of privacy: it made no reference to his private or family life, and
while it referred to an injury he had sustained, it described only the
appearance of the injury in general terms, which would have been apparent to
any passer-by. As such, the Committee did not consider that the article
intruded into the complainant’s private life and there was, therefore, no
breach of Clause 2 of the Code.
Conclusion(s)
15.
The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
16.
N/A
Date
complaint received: 30/06/2021
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/01/2022