Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09453-22 A woman v Daily Mirror
Summary
of Complaint
1. A
woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Daily
Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment)
and Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Evil Bellfield’s girlfriend: I’m not ashamed / I AM NOT
ASHAMED..LEVI HAS CHANGED”, published on 13 May 2022.
2. The
article reported on a relationship between an unnamed woman and a convicted
serial killer. The article was featured as a teaser on the front page of the
newspaper showing a picture of the woman with her face pixelated alongside the
man’s head shot. It described the article as an “exclusive” with the headline:
“Evil Bellfield’s girlfriend: I’m not ashamed”.
3. The
substantive article appeared on pages eight and nine of the newspaper, and was
again described as an “exclusive”. It contained several quotes attributed to
the “girlfriend” of the serial killer: that he had “changed” in prison; was
“not a monster” but had “a bad past” and “has remorse”. The article also quoted
her as saying that she was “not ashamed” of the relationship; and that she was
“no random silly woman with an obsession for serial killers. I’m a very
educated, intelligent woman, nobody’s fool. I don’t know Levi from 2002, I know
the Levi of now. Well since 2019. I’m extremely non-judgmental, and although I
have great empathy with the victims, I have empathy with Levi too. He is my
partner, we have an extremely close relationship – people may not understand
that, but we all make our choices in life” and they had shared “kisses and
cuddles” in jail and had “moaned about prison conditions”. The article reported
that Mr Bellfield was “planning to get married in prison” and that he had
“consulted a solicitor to help him with his plan to marry and ha[d] lodged an
application with chiefs at Frankland prison in Co Durham”.
4. The
article also appeared online under the headline “Exclusive: Levi Bellfield’s
girlfriend says killer is ‘not a monster’ and has ‘changed’ in prison”, and was
published on 12 May (one day prior to the print publication) in substantially
the same format.
5. The
complainant, the woman referred to in the article as the girlfriend of the
serial killer, said that the article was in breach of Clause 2. She had read an
article about her partner which appeared in a previous, Sunday edition of the
newspaper, and said she had written to the journalist who wrote that piece on 1
May to make a complaint about it.
6. In
that email, the complainant stated: “I am writing to you on behalf of my
partner levi Bellfield re the article you published in todays paper. He wishes
to make the following comments” [sic] and then explained why the man considered
the article to be inaccurate. The complainant also made comments on their
relationship in this email, some of which were included in the article under
complaint. She had ended the email stating: “Levi will be putting an official
complaint in. This email is confidential in that obviously gives my name. If
you print my name I will not hesitate to sue you! For the simple reason there
are many many judgemental people in this world, haters and I have to think of
my own family and myself. My windows would no doubt be put through! Thank you
for respecting my privacy” [sic].
7. The
reporter responded via email on 2 May asking if the complainant would be
willing to meet to discuss the matter. On the same day the complainant
responded by email that she would need to think about it and discuss the matter
with her partner. She also made further comments about herself, her
relationship and prison conditions, which were included in the article. The
complainant ended this email by stating: “As I said please respect my privacy
and under no circumstances ever reveal my name as you would put me and my
family in danger due to the judgemental haters of this world. He’s been
sentenced and lost his life too. But still it’s not enough and people would
without doubt come after me. I’m not ashamed of my relationship with Levi, but
I have a family to protect too. I hope you understand that” [sic].
8. The
complainant said that she received a phone call from the reporter on 10 May but
was unavailable to speak at that time. She said she was unsure as to how the
newspaper had obtained her phone number and was concerned it had obtained it
from a separate complaint she had with IPSO. She considered that using her
contact details in this manner intruded into her private life.
9. On 11
May, the complainant said she received a WhatsApp message from the journalist,
which she provided to IPSO. The message said that the publication would be
publishing a piece about her engagement to the man and wanted to speak to her
about it. The complainant responded to the message saying it was “absolute
rubbish” then said, “In fact send me your email I will give you a statement”.
She also referred to a “duplicate story”, as a separate newspaper had published
a story about her relationship to the prisoner, which she did not want to make
a complaint about as she did not consider herself to be identifiable by the
pictures it had used. The complainant also said she had received 20 missed
calls from an unknown number on this date.
10. On
12 May, after the publication of the online version of the article, the
complainant sent a further email disputing the accuracy of the article under
complaint and stated she was not engaged. She also stated “Now please leave me
alone, I’m changing my phone number and email. I have been advised by my
solicitor to ignore you completely. It’s nothing less than harassment at it’s
best” [sic], and then on 14 May she sent a further email which stated “Do not
contact me by email or phone ever again. A complaint has gone in about you,
your behaviour is beyond comprehension”.
11. The
complainant said that her email of 1 May had been her first contact with the
publication and that had been solely to make a complaint about the previous
article in the Sunday edition. She said that she had stressed that the
correspondence in relation to this complaint was confidential. She said,
therefore, that she had an expectation of privacy over the information
contained in her correspondence and that the publication should not have
published her comments.
12. The
complainant also said that the use of the photo of her taken from social media
was a breach of Clause 2. She said that, whilst the images were pixelated, they
were her profile photos and were clearly recognisable to anyone who knew her.
The complainant said that she had been recognised at the prison by another
visitor due to the photos included in the article. She said that by publishing
her likeness in this way and connecting her with the prisoner, the newspaper
had put her and her family at risk. The complainant also said that her Facebook
account was private and had been for several years.
13. The
complainant also said that as she had stated that the email was “confidential”,
as well as having requested her privacy be respected and her name not be
revealed, the publication had breached its moral obligation to protect her as a
confidential source under Clause 14 by publishing the contents of her email.
14. The complainant also said that the
reporter’s behaviour prior to the publication of the article amounted to
harassment in breach of Clause 3. She said that a journalist had requested to
meet her, however she did not want to meet him. She also said that after
failing to respond to his messages, he had also attempted to call her and sent
her messages on WhatsApp. The complainant said she had only engaged in
correspondence with the publication to correct the story published in the
Sunday edition, and that she had felt “hounded” and intimidated by the
publication’s subsequent efforts to contact her. She said on 11 May she had
asked the publication not to publish the story, but it did so anyway.
15. The
complainant also said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1.
She said that the article had been described as an “exclusive” which gave the
misleading impression she had willingly been interviewed by the newspaper, when
in fact she had been trying to make a complaint and had not believed the
content of her emails would be published. In addition, the complainant said
that she was not engaged to the prisoner, nor had she ever told the newspaper
that she was.
16. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the complainant
had initiated contact with a reporter and had willingly provided information in
response to an earlier article. It acknowledged that the complainant had asked
for her name not to be revealed and said that it had taken efforts to protect
her identity, such as omitting her name and pixelating photographs of her.
However, it noted that the complainant had started her first email by stating
that she was writing on behalf of the prisoner and that he wanted to make “the
following comments”. The publication said, therefore, that it was reasonable
for the newspaper to interpret the email sent by the complainant as a right of
reply and to clarify points regarding their relationship which it was entitled to
publish. It also noted that when the reporter asked the complainant if she
wanted to meet, she gave further information about her relationship, yet only
expressed concerns that the publication not reveal her name. The publication
also supplied a transcript of the phone call with the complainant and said that
at the end of the phone call the complainant asked if she could call the
reporter the next day, and in the subsequent WhatsApp messages she had asked to
“give a statement”. It said that in these circumstances the complainant did not
have a reasonable expectation of privacy over the information in the article.
17. In
addition, the publication said it did not consider that the complainant had a
reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of being identified in connection
to the information in the article. It said that the fact of a relationship was
not private, and the complainant had confirmed that she was not ashamed about
it. It said that the complainant chose to embark on a relationship with a notorious
criminal murderer which would be considered by many to be controversial.
18. With
regards to the photographs, the publication said that the images used in the
article had been taken from the complainant’s open Facebook page, and noted
that other images showing the complainant’s likeness were also visible on her
Twitter page. In addition, the publication noted that the complainant’s face
was obscured when published.
19. The
publication also said that it did not receive the complainant’s telephone
number from her previous IPSO complaint, which was not received until after it
had called her. In addition, it stated that it did not consider that gaining
her telephone number in order to clarify information with a view to publication
was an intrusion into her private life.
20.
Similarly, the publication did not accept that the complainant was a
confidential source such as to engage Clause 14. As previously noted, it said
that the complainant had provided “comments” and had offered to give “a statement”
and therefore the publication did not accept that the complainant had made
clear that the information should not be published. It also said that, in any
case, the complainant was not identifiable from the article, where the
photographs of her had been obscured.
21. The
publication also said that there was no breach of Clause 3. It acknowledged
that a request to stop contact had been received on 14 May; however, it said
that the complainant had not been contacted by the publication after that date.
It also said that none of the other contact it had with the complainant
amounted to intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit, but that the
complainant was voluntarily providing information to the publication. It also
said that the journalist had always been polite in their communications.
22. The
publication did not consider that there had been a breach of Clause 1. It
repeated its position that it did not consider the emails to be confidential
and noted that it was the only newspaper to have been supplied with them. On
this basis, it did not consider it to be misleading to describe the article as
being “exclusive”.
23. The
publication also noted that the article did not report that the complainant was
engaged, nor did it refer to her as the fiancée of her partner. It said that
the article had reported that her partner had “consulted a solicitor to help
him with his plan to marry and ha[d] lodged an application with chiefs at
Frankland prison in Co Durham”. It said, therefore, that this related to the
complainant’s partner and not her, and that it had been confirmed by the
Ministry of Justice.
24. The
complainant disputed that her Facebook account was public. She noted that the
whole account had been private; however, she accepted that two profile pictures
used in the article, had been public. She said she had been unaware of this and
had since changed the account to be fully private. She said that the journalist
should have been aware that it was private and not used the images.
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.
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.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are
observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant
material from other sources.
Clause
14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists
have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.
Findings
of the Committee
25. The
Committee noted that the material about the complainant in the article derived
mainly from emails sent by the complainant to the publication. The complainant
had said they formed part of a confidential complaints process and she
therefore had a reasonable expectation of privacy over their contents. The
publication said that the emails had not been a complaint, but rather a
response to a previous article on behalf of herself and her partner, and that
the complainant had only requested that her name not be published, which it was
not.
26. The
Committee noted that the article did not simply report the existence of the
relationship between the complainant and an imprisoned serial killer, but also included
a number of details, such as the complainant’s feelings about the
relationship. The Committee considered
that there may be a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information
of this nature, and in reaching its decision gave careful consideration to the
circumstances which existed in this case.
27. The
Committee first wished to make clear that providing information to a
publication in the context of making a confidential complaint about published
material would not amount to a public disclosure for the purposes of Clause
2(ii); IPSO itself requires that material provided as part of an IPSO complaint
is to be kept confidential. The
Committee therefore carefully reviewed the content of the emails which had been
exchanged between the complainant and the publication. The Committee noted that the complainant’s
first email had started by stating that her partner “wishes to make the
following comments” and ended by stating he “will be putting an official
complaint in” which suggested that the information had not been provided as
part of a complaint and that any such complaint would follow separately. The
Committee noted that the complainant had written in the first email: “This
email is confidential in that obviously gives my name. If you print my name I
will not hesitate to sue you!”, and in the second: “As I said please respect my
privacy and under no circumstances ever reveal my name”. The Committee
considered that those sentences indicated that the complainant expected only
that her name would be kept confidential but that, by extension, she did not have
a similar expectation in relation to the rest of the information provided. In the second email, which was sent by the
complainant in response to the reporter asking if she wished to “discuss” the
matter, the complainant said she would have to “think about it”, and she also
provided further information about her and her partner after stating “just so
you know” to the reporter. Again, this email ended with a request for
confidentiality only in relation to her name.
28. The
Committee noted that the specific piece of information that the complainant had
asked to be kept confidential was her name, and this was not published in the
article. Having given consideration to the content of the complainant’s emails
and that they had been sent in response to previously published material but
not, in the Committee’s view, as part of a confidential complaint about that
material, the Committee considered that the complainant had voluntarily
disclosed this information to the publication. Having done so, publication of
the information did not amount to an intrusion into the complainant’s private
life. There was no breach of Clause 2.
29. The
complainant also said that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the
photographs had been taken from her Facebook profile and published in the
article. She acknowledged that the photographs were public, although the rest
of her profile was not. When considering complaints under Clause 2, the
Committee considers to what extent the information is already within the public
domain. In these circumstances, the photographs used in the article had been
placed in the public domain by the complainant and therefore she did not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy over them. There was no breach of Clause 2 on
this point.
30. The
Committee then turned to the question of whether the complainant had been
acting as a confidential source and had subsequently been identified in breach
of Clause 14. However, the Committee noted that the complainant had not
requested to be a confidential source, nor had the publication entered into an
agreement with her that she would be a confidential source. She had requested
that her name not be published, and the publication did not do so; she was not
identified by name, and the publication had taken the further step of
pixelating the published photograph of her so that she could not be readily
identified from it. There was no breach of Clause 14.
31. The
complainant also said that the conduct of the reporter prior to the publication
of the article amounted to a breach of Clause 3. The Committee reviewed the
written correspondence from the journalist to the complainant, which it found
to be professional and polite. It also noted that, whilst the complainant did
not expect to receive a phone call or know how the publication had obtained her
number, journalists reaching out to complainants for comment does not in itself
represent a breach of Clause 3 – and in fact could be part of their
responsibility to take care over the accuracy of published information.
Finally, the Committee noted that the first time a request to desist had been
made was on 12 May, and that this request had been respected and no further
contact was made after this date. On this basis, the Committee did not find a
breach of Clause 3.
32. The
complainant had also said that it was misleading to describe the article as
“exclusive”. However, where the article included information which she had
provided only to one publication, the Committee did not consider this to be
significantly misleading. Additionally, the complainant had said she was not
engaged, and that the article was inaccurate to suggest this. However, the
Committee noted that the article had not stated she was engaged, but that her
partner, not the complainant herself, was “planning to get married in prison”
and that he had “consulted a solicitor to help him with his plan to marry and
ha[d] lodged an application with chiefs at Frankland prison in Co Durham”. As
the article did not state that the complainant was engaged, and she had not
disputed that such an application had been lodged, there was no breach of
Clause 1.
Conclusion(s)
33. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
34. N/A
Date
complaint received: 17/05/2022
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 07/11/2022
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.
Back to ruling listing