Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09504-22 Hunter v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. Carl
Hunter complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Mail
Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 10
(Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “'This is lawfare': David Davis warns libel action by Russian
oligarchs and rich 'with deep pockets' is having 'chilling effect' on free
press after Putin's People book case cost journalist £1.5million”, published on
24 January 2022 and an article headlined “Millionaire Conservative Party donor
Mohamed Amersi begins libel proceedings against ex-Tory MP Charlotte Leslie
claiming she has been trying to damage his reputation”, published on 8 April
2022.
2. The
first article reported on a debate on “lawfare”, which the article described as
“wealthy foreign businessmen using British courts to pursue their critics”. It
reported on comments made by a former Conservative cabinet minister, which had
been made in Parliament, and who gave several examples of what he considered to
be “lawfare”. The article also stated that the Commons debate “saw a Tory
tycoon and a senior Conservative adviser accused of trying to 'bully' [a]
former MP”, and noted that several MPs “criticised [the] prominent Conservative
adviser”. The article said the debate followed a “disclosure by the Daily Mail
of shocking leaked phone calls” between the adviser and the former MP,
including that the former MP “needed to 'consider being able to walk the dog at
night' if she refused to apologise”. It also said the former MP had “complained
to the police about the 'sinister' calls” and that another former Conservative
cabinet minister had said the advisor had “engaged in bullying and egregious
behaviour” when he “tried to broker peace between” the former MP and a
Conservative donor.
3. The
second article, published nearly three months after the first article, stated
that the Conservative donor was issuing libel proceedings against the former
MP. It stated that the former MP had “said she had a 'sinister' phone
conversation in which she was told by [the government adviser] to consider
whether she could 'walk the dog at night and sleep well' following her fallout
with the [Conservative donor]”. It described the advisor as “acting as a
‘mediator’” during the phone calls. The full quotes given in the article
reported that: “'You need to consider your position – being able to walk the
dog at night, being able to sleep well at night'”; the advisor had “insisted
she was 'alone' and faced 'a world of pain' unless she backed down”; that the
former MP “was 'in the eye of the storm... it's you they seem to be after' and
claimed: 'It's like a volcano.'”; and that the issue ”would 'monopolise your
life for as long as it lasts... it just weighs on your mind so much... I don't
want to see you photographed in some tabloid standing on the steps of
somewhere.'” The article contained a four and a half minute audio recording of
the phone call which included the quotes in the article.
4. The
complainant, the adviser accused of being “sinister” during the telephone
calls, said that the articles were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He
accepted that he had spoken the words in the audio recording in the second
article and which were quoted in the articles, but noted that the calls had
been far longer than the clip published in the second article and that neither
article had published the full transcript of the calls. He said, therefore, the
articles missed much of the surrounding context of the quotes and that this
rendered them misleading and was particularly concerned as the former MP had
expressed her appreciation to the complainant during the calls for his attempts
to reconcile the parties. He said that she had not stated that she found the
conduct inappropriate, offensive or threatening during the telephone call
itself nor when she met him at a later date. The complainant said that the
omission of this context led to the articles being unbalanced and unfair: he
said his aim was to assist her, and he was a neutral party. He said that the
full recording would have demonstrated that the calls were not “sinister”.
5. The
complainant also considered that the articles amounted to an unjustified
intrusion into his private life. He said that the telephone calls were private
and confidential and that neither the recordings of them nor quotes from them
should have been published without his consent.
6. The
complainant also said that he had been unaware that the telephone calls he was
having with the former MP were being recorded, and that he had not consented to
this. He said, therefore, the recordings had been obtained by subterfuge and
clandestine means in breach of Clause 10.
7. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It noted that it had reported
the matter subsequent to the publication of articles by another newspaper in
January which had initially revealed the nature of the phone calls to the
former MP, and that its reporting of the complainant’s comments, and the video
clip, had come from this publication. It also said that several of the quotes
in the article had been referred to in a debate in Parliament.
8. The
publication said it had accurately reported the remarks made by the
complainant, and said that he had not set out what qualifying elements were
omitted that would have rendered the article misleading. It said that, given
the recording of the phone call, it did not consider that it was feasible that
any context would have undone the effect of the call in general, which had led
the former MP to call the police. In addition, the publication said it had
attributed any allegations that the phone call was “sinister” to the former MP.
The publication said it was not inaccurate that it had not included that the
former MP had thanked the complainant at the time – it said that this was not
evidence that the conversation was not alarming to her and that there were many
reasons, such as fear or alarm, why someone who has been subject to
intimidation might choose not to highlight this to the person whose actions
they found to be menacing. The publication also said that the complainant had
declined to comment prior to the publication of the article.
9. The
publication said that, as the phone call and video clip were already in the
public domain due to being published by another newspaper, as well as being
referred to in Parliament, that the complainant had no reasonable expectation
of privacy over the information and there was no breach of Clause 2. It
supplied the debate by Parliament, which included the quote in the first
article. It also said that as it had not initially revealed the information,
but instead had taken it from both another publication and the Parliamentary
debate, Clause 10 was not engaged. It said that, in any case, the former MP had
not utilised a clandestine device, and was entitled to record the phone call
made to her. It said this was synonymous with making contemporaneous notes.
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
10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*
i) The
press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden
cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile
telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of
documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without
consent.
ii)
Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or
intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then
only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
Findings
of the Committee
10. The
Committee noted that selection is a matter of editorial discretion and the
publication was entitled to select sections of the telephone calls between the
complainant and the former MP for publication, as long as it took care that
this was not inaccurate, misleading or distorted. The Committee noted the
complainant’s concerns that the full context of the calls had not been
reproduced within the articles; he had said the former MP had thanked him
during the telephone calls and that this had not been included in the articles,
which he considered rendered the account of the conversation misleading.
However, the Committee did not consider that omitting these comments rendered
the published material to be misleading; the complainant accepted that he had said
the quoted words in the article, and the woman who he had called had explained
that she found the comments quoted to be threatening. She was entitled to
express this view, and the basis for this view – those comments – was included
in the article. Comments made by the complainant during the call that were
different in tenor, or the way that the woman had responded as the conversation
was ongoing, did not affect this. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
11. The
Committee noted that the comments made by the complainant were established in
the public domain: a separate newspaper had published them, alongside a
recording of the call. In addition, several of the quotes included in the
article had also been discussed in Parliament. The quote from the first article
had been made public in Parliament and the quotes from the second article had
been made in Parliament, as well as in and article, published in another
national newspaper almost three months prior. Where the quotes were already in
the public domain in these respects, the complainant did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, and there was no breach of Clause 2.
12.
Similarly, the publication had not engaged in any subterfuge nor had it used
any clandestine means to obtain the information. It had instead taken the
information from the public domain, and therefore Clause 10 was not engaged.
Conclusion(s)
13. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
14. N/A
Date
complaint received: 20/05/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/11/2022
Back to ruling listing