Decision of the Complaints Committee 07411-18 Arcadia Group v The Daily Telegraph
Summary of complaint
1. Arcadia Group Limited and Top Shop/ Top Man Limited complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the conduct of journalists acting on behalf of The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
2. The complainant said that, since March
2018, journalists acting on behalf of the publication had contacted a number of
current and former employees, despite requests from the complainant for them to
desist. Arcadia Group was not complaining on behalf of any of these
individuals, but said that, taken together, these contacts constituted
harassment and persistent pursuit of the corporate entities bringing the
complaint. The complainant said that the
conduct included contacting current staff members at home late in the evening
and telephoning staff members at home. It also said that a journalist had
attempted to contact one former staff member twice and on one occasion the door
had been answered by her 13 year old child. The complainant said that a number
of these individuals were concerned about how the newspaper had obtained their
addresses and phone numbers.
3. The newspaper did not accept that it had
breached the Code. It said that it was necessary to approach individuals to
ensure the accuracy of its reporting. In this instance, it said that a number
of serious allegations of sexual harassment, racist abuse, and bullying in the
workplace had been made against the complainant. It noted that the complainant
and the newspaper were currently involved in litigation which considered
whether, and to what extent, there was a public interest in exposing the alleged
wrongdoing at the organisation, some of which was allegedly subject to
non-disclosure agreements. The newspaper said that approaches were made to
ensure that Arcadia employees who may be in a position to shed light upon
alleged wrongdoing at the company were given a fair opportunity to do so, away
from Arcadia property and staff. It said that the complainant had a vested
interest in preventing such approaches and that Clause 3 provides protection to
individuals, not corporations. As the complainant was not acting on behalf of
the individuals, Clause 3 was not engaged. Nevertheless, it denied that any of
the individuals referred to in correspondence had been harassed and said that
none of its journalists persisted in contacting any individuals who made a request
Relevant Code Provisions
4. Clause 3 (Harassment)*
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.
Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and
take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.
Findings of the Committee
5. The complaint was not made on behalf of any
of the individuals who had been approached by the newspaper. This decision
should not be read as a finding as to whether any of these individuals had been
6. The Committee recognised that there is a
legitimate public interest in publications making approaches to third parties
it believes may be able to provide further information about a story. The terms
of Clause 3 do not prohibit journalists from doing so, but are instead designed
to protect individuals from intimidating or continued unwanted approaches from
the press. Clause 3 refers specifically to individuals, and the Committee did
not accept that it was possible for a corporate entity to experience the
intrusive harm Clause 3 seeks to prevent. As such, the Committee did not accept
that the terms of Clause 3 were engaged.
7. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
Date complaint received: 19/11/2018
Date decision issued: 01/05/2019
Back to ruling listing