Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09309-21 A woman v Daily Mail
Summary
of Complaint
1. A
woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, through a
representative, that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12
(Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “I
was sexually assaulted in a women’s prison... by a fellow inmate with male
genitalia”, published on 24 July 2021.
2. The
article was an interview with the complainant in which she recounted her
experience of being sexually assaulted by another inmate whilst detained in a
women’s prison. The headline was followed by the sub-heading: “Now read Amy’s
shocking story and decide: Can it be right to send trans sex offenders to
female jails?”. A footnote at the end of the article stated: “Pseudonyms have
been used”.
3. The
article quoted the complainant as discussing the circumstances of the alleged
assault, which she said had occurred in the toilets of the gym and where the
attacker, who had received a Gender Recognition Certificate, worked as a
cleaner: “Just before she assaulted me, she was seen with the shower curtain
open, her genitals in full view of the other women [...] She leered at me
before lunging forward and grabbing my breasts hard. She squeezed them and I
cried out in pain. I was terrified she would rape me”. The complainant was
quoted as saying that the incident “brought back feelings of trauma about all
the previous times when I’ve been attacked by men”, adding that other prisoners
were also scared of the individual “because she would rub up against them in
the dinner queue with an erect penis”. The complainant was also quoted
recounting how she, and other women, had heard that the attacker had been “sent
to the segregation unit as punishment for not taking the medication that
prevented her penis from getting erect, ‘which begs the question: “Why was she
still allowed around us?”.’”
4. The
article also appeared online, headlined: ”‘I was sexually assaulted in a
women’s prison…by a fellow inmate with male genitalia’: Read Amy’s story and
decide – can it be right to put trans sex offenders in female jails?” and was
substantially the same as the print article.
5. The
complainant said that the article repeatedly misquoted her: throughout the
interview she had used male pronouns to describe her attacker, yet the
publication had altered her comments to describe her fellow inmate using female
pronouns, whilst still presenting the comments as direct quotations, giving the
false impression she had used female pronouns to describe her attacker. The
complainant did not consider that a woman could have a penis, and the decision
by the publication to alter the pronouns she used gave a misleading impression
of her views on both the assault and the gender of her attacker: readers might
incorrectly understand the complainant to have been assaulted by someone she
perceived to be female. While the publication might prefer to use female
pronouns to describe transgender women, she was under no obligation to do so.
The complainant was a survivor of male sexual assault, describing in the
article how the attack she experienced in prison brought back traumatic feelings
about “all the other times when I have been attacked by men”, and she should be
free to talk about her experiences without being misrepresented.
6.
Furthermore, she said that by altering her comments the publication had
wrongfully attributed to her a “gender identity ideology” – a belief, which,
she did not hold – and in doing so disregarded her own gender critical beliefs.
She said that this constituted a breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination), adding
that following a recent court ruling and with regard to the Equality Act 2010,
these particular beliefs should be considered a “religion”, and as such a
protected characteristic under the terms of this Clause.
7. The
newspaper accepted that it had altered the male pronouns used by the
complainant during the interview to describe her attacker, but did not accept
that this represented a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said that this was
necessary in order to avoid inaccurate and discriminatory reference to the
transgender woman, who was in receipt of a Gender Recognition Certificate, and
to comply with the Editors’ Code. Further, it said that the reporter had
contacted the complainant prior to publication to seek her consent for the
altered quotations, and the complainant had agreed to the change.
8. In
any case, the newspaper did not consider that these changes rendered the
article inaccurate or misleading. The article made clear the gender identity of
the attacker, including that the attacker had previously lived as a man; had
been placed in a women’s prison after receiving a Gender Recognition
Certificate; and retained male genitalia. Readers would not be misled as to the
complainant’s experiences or her views in circumstances where the sub-heading
and text of the article made clear that she did not believe that male-bodied
sex offenders should be allowed in women’s prisons.
9. The
newspaper noted that quotes were not generally reported absolutely verbatim;
amendments were a necessary and practical part of the editing process for
publications, notably for style and brevity as well as other legal and
editorial considerations. It added that flagging such changes to readers would
be unnecessary and potentially confuse readers.
10. The
newspaper denied a breach of Clause 12. It did not accept that changing the
pronouns originally used by the complainant amounted to a pejorative reference
to her gender critical beliefs. Nor did it accept that such beliefs could
reasonably be considered a “religion” under the Editors’ Code.
11.
Notwithstanding this, the newspaper offered, upon receipt of the complaint, in
a gesture of goodwill and in an attempt to resolve the complaint, to amend the
online article to describe the individual as “the attacker”.
12.
Whilst the complainant accepted that she had been informed of and consented to
the changes prior to publication, she said that this consent had not been
freely given. She was a vulnerable interviewee (being a victim of sexual
assault and an ex-offender) and had been put in a position where she felt she
had no choice other than to agree to the amendments. Without this consent, she
feared, that the article would not be published, and her story not told.
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
12 (Discrimination)
i) The
press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race,
colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical
or mental illness or disability.
ii)
Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless
genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings
of the Committee
13. The
Committee recognised the sensitivity of this complaint. The editing process
might, on occasion, mean that verbatim comments by individuals are altered for
publication, but the Code requires that any such changes do not misrepresent
the comments of the individual. In some instances, this may involve contacting
the interview subject to clarify their intended meaning or follow up on
specific points.
14. The
article quoted the complainant’s comments at length, describing her experiences
and how they had influenced her views on the prison service’s policies relating
to transgender inmates. In her comments, the complainant had originally
described her alleged attacker using male pronouns, which she explained in her
complaint to IPSO reflected her perception of the individual and by extension
her views on matters related to gender and sex. In the view of the Committee,
given the nature of the allegations and the significance of the broader public
debates about sex and gender, on which the complainant had commented in the
article, the change of pronoun was a significant one in this context. However,
it was accepted that the publication had communicated to the complainant in
advance of publication about the proposed change of pronoun, and that she had
not objected or suggested that this change would significantly misrepresent her
views. Irrespective of the complainant’s subsequent objection to the
amendments, she had accepted the proposed changes, and in the view of the
Committee, the publication was entitled to consider that she had agreed that
the change of pronouns did not make the quotations significantly inaccurate or
misrepresent her views at the time of publication.
15. The
Committee’s considered the argument that the complainant’s agreement to the
change was invalid because of her vulnerability. The Committee acknowledged the
complainant’s position, but it did not accept that this vulnerability meant
that she was unable to agree to this change; it had not been suggested that she
was not legally competent to consent to giving the interview, from which the
issue about pronouns stemmed. She was entitled to tell her story and had done
so, and the exchange with the publication about how it would be handled
followed on from this.
16. The
publication had contacted the complainant regarding the use of pronouns before
publication, and the pronoun used apparently reflected the legal sex of the
individual concerned. The Committee found that the publication had taken care
over the accuracy of the article, and there was no significant inaccuracy
requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii). Nonetheless, in light of
the complainant’s position as outlined in her complaint, the Committee welcomed
the publication’s offer to amend the online article.
17. The
terms of Clause 12 state that publications must avoid prejudicial or pejorative
reference to an individual’s religion. There is no reference to “beliefs” in
the clause. The complainant’s gender critical views did not constitute a
“religion”, and the terms of Clause 12 were not engaged.
Conclusion(s)
18. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
19. N/A
Date
complaint received: 18/08/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/02/2022
Back to ruling listing