Decision of the Complaints Committee -- 09539-19 A Woman
v Hull Daily Mail
Summary of Complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Hull Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy), Clause 6 (Children) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Kids’ entertainer ‘Bobby
Bubbles’ jailed for abusing a child / Children’s entertainer ‘Bobby Bubbles’
behind bars for abusing young girl who thought ‘she was in love’ with him”
published on 10 December 2019.
2. The article, which featured on the front page and then
continued on page 4, reported on the conviction of a man for ten historic child
sex offences, including raping a child. It reported that the court heard that
at the time of the offences, the victim “thought she was in love” with the man,
and refused to cooperate with the police investigation – it was only when she
became a mother herself that she reported the abuse. It reported that the man was
well known in the local area as a children’s entertainer and clown, and that he
regularly came into contact with children in his work. The article included
several large photographs of the man in his role as a clown, as well as a
photograph of him released by the police.
3. The article also appeared online on 9 December 2019 with
the headline “Kids entertainer ‘Bobby Bubbles’ raped child who ‘thought she was
in love’ with him”. The text of the article was substantially the same as the
print version. However, the online version was headlined with a photograph of
the man in costume, posing with two children. The children’s faces were
pixelated, but their bodies and hair were not. The image which was used in this
version of the article also appeared in the Google search results for the
newspaper, and on the publication’s Facebook and Twitter posts advertising the
article. A cropped version of the photograph showing the man with only one of
the children, also appeared in an Instagram story posted by the publication.
4. The complainant was the mother of the two children
included in the online version of the article. She said that her children had
no connection to the man or his convictions. She said that despite pixelation,
her children were still identifiable because the photograph of her children had
been taken in 2017 to advertise the opening of a local venue, and had been
widely circulated at the time. She said that she had been contacted by many
people who were familiar with the image and recognised her children. The
complainant said that the image of the children was taken in the context of a
fun day, and she did not consent to its use in the context of a court report.
When the complainant contacted the newspaper directly, it cropped her children
from the image. However, she said that the image had been widely shared on
social media by this point.
5. The complainant said that the online article breached
Clause 2, Clause 6 and Clause 9. She said that her children had been distressed
and confused by the use of the photograph to illustrate a court report of a
convicted paedophile, an issue which she said involved their welfare. She also
said that other children at school and extra-curricular clubs had been able to
identify them, and had asked them about the article.
6. The complainant also said that the article breached
Clause 1 as the photograph, in conjunction with the headline, gave the
impression that her daughter was the victim of the convicted man. She said that
many people had contacted her to ask whether this was the case, which had
caused her and her daughter much distress.
7. The publication did not accept that there was a breach of
the Code. It apologised for any distress caused to the complainant and her
children, and noted that when the complainant contacted it directly, it had
cropped the image to remove the children. It said that where the children’s
faces were pixelated, they were therefore only identifiable to those who had
known they had been photographed for the opening of the local venue.
Furthermore, the photograph in the article did not relate to an issue involving
their welfare. Nevertheless, parental consent had been given to publish the
image when it was for the purposes of advertising the local venue. It said that
in relation to whether the children’s time at school had been intruded upon,
any child who had been able to identify the children must also have read the
full article, and in doing so would understand that the victim was now an adult
and so could not be the girl pictured in the photograph. For these reasons, the
publication did not accept that there was a breach of Clause 6. As it did not
accept that the children were identifiable, the publication said that the terms
of Clause 9 were not engaged.
8. The publication said that the image had been taken with
the parent’s consent for the purpose of an advertisement, and an image of the
children remained on the local venue’s website. As such, it said that it could
not be an intrusion into the children’s privacy to republish the image, and
there was no breach of Clause 2.
9. The publication did not accept that the article gave the
impression that the complainant’s daughter was the victim of the convicted man,
in breach of Clause 1. It said that the article made clear that the victim,
although abused as a child, was now an adult. Furthermore, any person who was
familiar with the image from the advertising campaign would also be aware that
the image was the one taken for the opening of the local venue, and not for the
purposes of illustrating a victim of crime.
Relevant Code Provisions
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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
13. 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.
Findings of the Committee
14. The photograph of the children only appeared in the
online version of the article and on social media channels. It did not appear
in the print version of the article and as such, the Committee did not make
findings in relation to the print article.
15. Parental consent had been given for the photograph to be
used to publicise the opening of a local venue; however, the newspaper had used
the image to illustrate a report concerning the conviction of a paedophile. The
Committee did not consider that the purposes for which consent had been
provided covered the use of the photograph in this context. This was a highly
sensitive subject, and regardless of the extent to which the children were
identifiable in the image, it constituted an issue involving the children’s
welfare. The image had been published in this context without parental consent,
and as such, there was a breach of Clause 6 (iii).
16. It was clear that despite the steps the newspaper had
taken, the children were identified by their peers, and the Committee noted the
advertising campaign which meant that the image was in the public domain.
Furthermore, the children had been contacted by their peers in relation to the
article, some of whom had asked whether they had any connection to the
convicted man or his crimes. The complainant was particularly concerned about
the use of the image on social media, where it had been cropped so that only
one child was visible alongside the man. The Committee considered that the
article, when read as a whole, did not suggest that the children were victims
of the man; it made clear that the victim was now an adult and had children of
her own. However, given the sensitive nature of the article, and the
presentation of the image in which the children were identifiable, the
Committee considered that the publication of the image had represented an
unnecessary intrusion into their time at school in breach of Clause 6(i).
17. The Committee then considered the complaint under Clause
2. The photograph of the children had been used with parental consent to
publicise the opening of a venue, and simply showed the children alongside the
man; it did not reveal anything private about them. In light of the complaint
upheld under Clause 6(i) in relation to intrusion, the Committee did not find
that there was a further breach of Clause 2.
18. The complainant had also raised concerns under Clause 1
as to whether the photograph gave the impression that her children were victims
of the man. However, given the Committee’s findings under Clause 6, namely that
the article made clear that the victim was now an adult with children of her
own, the Committee considered that there were no further issues to pursue under
Clause 1.
19. The terms of Clause 9 serve to protect friends or family
of a person accused or convicted of a crime from being identified, unless they
are genuinely relevant to the story. In this case, the children were neither
friends nor family of the convicted man, and so the terms of Clause 9 were not
engaged.
Conclusions
20. There was a breach of Clause 6.
Remedial Action Required
21. The Committee considered that the appropriate remedy to
the breach of Clause 6 was the publication of an adjudication. The breach of
the Code had occurred only in the online article; as such the adjudication
should be published online, with a link to it (including the headline) being
published on the newspaper’s homepage for 24 hours, as well as via a link on
the publication’s social media channels where the photograph had appeared. The
publication should contact IPSO to confirm the amendments it now intends to
make to the online material, including social media posts, to avoid the
continued publication of material in breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
22. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as
follows:
Following an article published on 10 December 2019, a woman
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Hull Daily
Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 6 (Children) and
Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Kids entertainer ‘Bobby Bubbles’ raped child who ‘thought she was in
love’ with him”.
The article reported on the conviction of a man for historic
child sex offences, including raping a child. The article included a headline
photograph of the man posing with two children. The children’s faces were
pixelated, but their bodies and hair were not.
The complainant was the mother of the children who were
included in the photograph. She said that she had not given consent for the
image to be used in the context of a court report – the use of the photograph
in the article had caused her children much distress, and they had been asked
by peers who recognised them whether they had any connection to the convicted
man. The publication said that the children were not identifiable because the
photograph was pixelated, that the image was already in the public domain, and
that readers of the whole article would understand that the children were not
connected to the man.
IPSO found that the use of the image in the article was so
different for the purpose for which it was originally taken, that the parental
consent that was originally given did not stand in this context. The article
covered a highly sensitive subject, and so the newspaper had published a
photograph of the children on an issue involving their welfare, without
parental consent. Furthermore, as the image was already in the public domain,
people were able to identify the children.
The children had been identified because the image had been
well-publicised elsewhere in an advertising campaign. They had been contacted
by their peers in relation to the article, some of whom had asked whether they
had any connection to the convicted man. This was upsetting to the children and
constituted an unnecessary intrusion into their time at school.
For these reasons, IPSO found that the article breached
Clause 6.
Date received: 14/12/2019
Date concluded by IPSO: 22/04/2020
Back to ruling listing