Resolution Statement 09272-19 A Woman v Manchester
Evening News
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Manchester Evening News breached Clause 2 (Privacy),
Clause 6 (Children), and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Both be seeing me very soon – you’re dead,
trust me... “, published on 30 November 2019
2. The article reported on the conviction of a man for
various violent, antisocial and sexual offences. It included photographs of the
man.
3. The article appeared online on 28 November 2019 with the
headline: 'You're dead. Trust me'... scaffolder posted nude pics of his
ex-girlfriend on Whatsapp and threatened to kill her after she complained”. It
was substantially the same as the print version, but included two photographs
of the man with a young child. The child’s face was pixelated.
4. The complainant was the mother of the child pictured in
the online article. She said that despite the photograph being pixelated,
friends and family were able to identify her child. She said that the
identification of her child in association with the man, in the context of a
court report into several serious convictions, caused her much distress and
represented a breach of Clause 2, Clause 6, and Clause 9.
5. The publication apologised for any distress caused but
did not accept that there was any breach of the Code. It said that it removed
the photographs as soon it was contacted by the complainant, and that it was
important to include the photographs to contrast the man’s crimes with his lack
of regard for the wellbeing of the young child. It also noted that the
photographs had been taken from an open social media page, and the newspaper
had taken steps to pixelate the child’s face.
Relevant Code 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.
Clause 6 (Children)*
i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at
school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school
without permission of the school authorities.
iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed
on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial
parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material
involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their
children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.
Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime)*
i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of
crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are
genuinely relevant to the story.
ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially
vulnerable position of children under the age of 18 who witness, or are victims
of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
iii) Editors should generally avoid naming children under
the age of 18 after arrest for a criminal offence but before they appear in a
youth court unless they can show that the individual’s name is already in the
public domain, or that the individual (or, if they are under 16, a custodial
parent or similarly responsible adult) has given their consent. This does not
restrict the right to name juveniles who appear in a crown court, or whose
anonymity is lifted.
Mediated Outcome
7. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
8. During IPSO’s investigation, as a gesture of goodwill,
the publication offered to write the complainant a private letter of apology.
9. The complainant said that this would resolve her
complaint.
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: 29/11/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 29/01/2020
Back to ruling listing