Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09505-22 Hunter v Daily Mail
Summary
of Complaint
1. Carl
Hunter complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 10
(Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Former MP 'felt threatened' by top Tory adviser in phone
calls: Charlotte Leslie contacted police claiming senior party activist asked
if she could 'walk the dog at night and sleep well'”, published on 18 January
2022 and an article headlined “Tycoon and Tory adviser accused of bullying
ex-MP”, published on 21 January.
2. The
first article reported on a telephone call between a former MP and the
complainant, who was described as a “government adviser”. It reported that the
telephone call occurred after “a clash” and “a power struggle” between the
former MP, Charlotte Leslie, and a named “telecoms tycoon” in relation to the
content of a “dossier”. The article said that “moves to defuse the rift led to
a series of phone calls between [the complainant], acting as ‘mediator’, and
[the MP]”. The article stated that the former MP had “contacted police claiming
that she had been ‘threatened’” by the “’sinister’ phone call”. The article
contained several quotes from the recorded telephone call: [the complainant]
telling the former MP that “you need to consider your position – being able to
walk the dog at night, being able to sleep well at night”; that the complainant
had “insisted [the MP] was ‘alone’ and faced ‘a world of pain’ unless she
backed down”; that she was “in the eye of the storm... it's [her] they seem to
be after”; had claimed ”It's like a volcano” and that the dispute would
“monopolise [her] 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 said that there had been four telephone calls
between the complainant and the former MP and that the advisor “denied
threatening” the her and that when approached for comment, had stated that “I
do not recollect using that sort of language. I was trying to help Charlotte”.
The article contained a four and a half minute recording of the telephone call,
which included the quotes in the article.
3. The
second article reported on the same telephone call after it was discussed in an
“explosive Commons debate” and stated that the complainant had been
“criticised” by MPs in Parliament. It described the complainant as having
attempted to “broker peace” between Ms Leslie and the Tory donor. This article
also stated that the former MP had “complained to the police about the
‘sinister’ calls” and included the quote in which the complainant had said the
former MP should “’consider being able to walk the dog at night’ if she refused
to apologise”. It said that the complainant had declined to comment.
4. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the
headline, “Tycoon and Tory adviser are accused of ’bullying’ former MP
Charlotte Leslie in row over Middle East group”.
5. The
complainant said that the articles were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He
accepted that he had spoken the words in the audio recording, and which were
quoted in the articles, but noted that the calls had been far longer than the
four-minute clip published and quoted. He said, therefore, that this was
clearly a heavily edited excerpt that had missed much of the surrounding
context of the quotes. The complainant said this rendered the articles
misleading and was particularly concerned that the articles had omitted to
mention that the former MP had expressed her appreciation to him 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 the annual
Conservative party conference at a later date. The complainant said that the
omission of this context led to the articles being unbalanced and unfair: the
complainant’s 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”.
6. The
complainant also said the articles were inaccurate as they did not report that
he had participated in the telephone call as part of his role as a “mediator”
or that the mediation process was private and confidential. He also said it was
inaccurate not to report that he was unaware he was being recorded.
7. The
complainant said that it was misleading for the articles to report that the
former MP had made a complaint to the police, but not to publish the outcome of
the complaint. He noted that he had been told by the police on 15 March 2022,
almost two months after the publication of the articles, that no further action
would be taken in relation to the complaint.
8. The
complainant also stated that he had not been given a fair opportunity to
comment on the information contained in the articles. Whilst he accepted that
he had been contacted in advance of the first article and had been asked
questions, he considered the reporter to have been “abrupt” and thought that
the call was tantamount to an “ambush”.
9. 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. He also said that, whilst he
was under criminal investigation, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in
respect of information relating to that investigation.
10. 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.
11. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that newspapers are
free to select which information to report on. It said it was not possible to
publish the full hours of conversation between the complainant and the former
MP in the first article and had chosen to include the specific quotes that set
out the basis for the former MP’s concern that the complainant had been
attempting to intimidate her. It also noted that it had included the
complainant’s denial of this, and his position that he had been trying to help
her. On this basis, it did not consider that the first article was inaccurate.
12. The
newspaper said that the second article reported allegations made against the
complainant under parliamentary privilege and that, as such, although the
complainant disagreed with the allegations, it was free to report on them, and
had not done so inaccurately. It also said that balance was not a matter which
fell under the Editors’ Code.
13. The
publication also stated that the first article made clear that the complainant
was speaking to the former MP in a mediator role. It said that it did not
consider it necessary to repeat the specifics of his position in the second
article for it to be an accurate report of the allegation made in parliament.
14. The
publication noted that the articles did not report that the complainant was
under police investigation, but rather that a complaint to the police had been
made against him. It said it was, therefore, unnecessary to add an update to
the articles for them to remain accurate. It did, however, in its response to
IPSO’s initial questions during the investigation, offer to add the
complainant’s position as the following footnote to both online articles:
Since
this article was published, we have been informed that the police have decided
to take no further action in relation to Mr Hunter.
15. The
publication said that, as the articles did not contain any significant
inaccuracies, the complainant was not entitled to a right to reply under Clause
1. It also noted that the Editors’ Code does not have a standalone requirement
for subjects of articles to be approached for comment. It also said that the
call from the reporter constituted a fair opportunity for the complainant to
respond to the allegations.
16. The
publication said that it did not consider that the complainant had explained in
his complaint what information in the telephone calls between himself and the
former MP he considered to be private. It said that it was not the case that
all conversations were intrinsically private and did not consider that the
complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy over any of the information
published. It said that, in any event,
there was an overriding public interest in reporting on the details of these
telephone calls, specifically in relation to detecting or exposing crime, or
the threat of crime or serious impropriety, and raising or contributing to a
matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical
conduct or incompetence concerning the public. It said that there was a public
interest in the dispute between the former MP and the Tory donor, as well as
the Conservative Party’s handling of the matter, treatment of women in politics
and its relationship with business figures. It said that where the female
former MP had contacted the police, this suggested she considered there to be
serious impropriety. The publication said its Legal Department and Managing
Editors’ Office had carefully considered which exact details from the telephone
calls were necessary to include to serve the public interest, and that the
quotes were necessary to demonstrate the former MP’s concerns. It said that it
also carefully considered the balance between any possible intrusion into the
complainant’s privacy and the public interest served, concluding that any such
intrusion was minimal and proportionate as it only reported his views on the
topic of the mediation itself, rather than personal information about him.
17. The
newspaper also said that as it had not reported that the complainant was under
investigation by the police, there was no breach of his privacy when reporting
that a complaint had been made to the police.
18. The
publication did not consider that Clause 10 was engaged. It said that recording
a telephone call without a participant’s knowledge did not constitute the use
of a “clandestine listening device”, nor had any misrepresentation or
subterfuge been utilised in the gathering of the information. The newspaper
stated that the telephone call was recorded with the purpose of taking a
contemporaneous note, and that recording the telephone call did not mean any
further information was gathered that was not already available.
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
19. 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 article
or recording, 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 words quoted in the article, and the woman whom
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
– the quoted 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.
20. The
complainant said that it was misleading for the articles not to reference that
he had been working as a mediator, and that the conversations had been
confidential. The Committee noted that the first article had, in fact,
described him as a “mediator”, and the second article had described him as
attempting to “broker peace”. It did not consider omitting that the call was, in
the view of the complainant, confidential rendered the article misleading. The
fact that he may have believed himself to be speaking in confidence did not, of
itself, mean that the article had reported what he had said inaccurately. In
addition, the Committee did not find that it was inaccurate to omit that the
complainant was unaware he was being recorded, as this had no bearing on the
accuracy of the quotes or the thrust of the articles: namely the language used
and the discussion of it in Parliament. There was no breach of Clause 1 on
these points.
21. The
Committee noted that both articles reported that a complaint had been made
about the complainant to the police, but neither article said whether the
police had taken any action in response. The publication was not obliged under
the terms of Clause 1 to find out that information or to report it. There was
no breach of Clause 1 on this point. Nonetheless, the Committee welcomed the
publication’s offer to append an update to the article online.
22. The
complainant had concerns about the way he was contacted for comment ahead of
the publication of the first article, as he considered the journalist to have
been “abrupt” when talking to him. Firstly, the Committee noted that there was
no standalone requirement to approach the subject of the article for comment,
although it could form part of the process of taking care to avoid
inaccuracies. In circumstances where the complainant had been contacted ahead
of publication, had the opportunity to deny the allegations made against him,
and that this denial was published in the first article, the Committee did not
consider that the publication had failed to take care over the accuracy of the
information within the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
23. The
Committee then turned to the complainant’s concern that reporting the content
of the calls represented an intrusion into his privacy. The Committee
considered that, as it related to private telephone calls between two
individuals, the terms of Clause 2 were engaged. However, it noted that the content of the
telephone calls did not relate to the complainant’s private or family life –
rather these were calls made in the course of his work. He had also made the
statements to a former MP, and she had found them threatening and had reported
to the police. Given the nature of the
content of the call the Committee considered that the intrusion into the
complainant’s privacy was limited. The Committee also considered that the
information published was in the public interest: the telephone calls had led
to allegations of serious impropriety, as well as contributing to a matter of
public debate in relation to how the Conservative Party handled such matters.
On balance, where the intrusion into the complainant’s private life was limited
to the publication of the recording and quotes and was justified by the public
interest in the reporting the content of the calls, there was no breach of
Clause 2.
24. The
complainant also said he had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the fact
he was under investigation by the police as a result of the telephone call. As
above, the article had not stated that the complainant was under investigation;
only that a complaint had been made against him to the police. The Committee
did not consider that this was information over which the complainant had a
reasonable expectation of privacy, and there was no breach of Clause 2.
25.
Finally, the Committee considered Clause 10. There had been no subterfuge
deployed in order to record the telephone call – the complainant was aware of
who he had been speaking to during the conversation. In addition, using a
recording device in order to record a conversation did not amount to a
clandestine device. The Committee noted the same information would have been
available had either participant of the call taken notes by hand or given an
oral account of the telephone call to the publication; it served to verify the
accuracy of the account. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 10.
Conclusion(s)
26. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
27. N/A
Date
complaint received: 20/05/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/11/2022
Back to ruling listing