Resolution
Statement – 09540-22 A woman v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. A
woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail
Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “EXCLUSIVE
Ex-boyfriend of Levi Bellfield's 'educated and intelligent' fiancée condemns
couple's wedding plans as he claims she was always fascinated by serial
killer's crimes during their relationship”, published on 17 May 2022 and an
article headlined “EXCLUSIVE: Serial killer Levi Bellfield, 54, wooed his new
fiancée by painting her a picture of a rose and offering her half the £4,500
compensation he got for being attacked in prison”, published on 19 May 2022.
2. The
first article was an interview with the “ex-boyfriend” of the “fiancée” of an
imprisoned serial killer. It stated that “the former partner of [the serial
killer]’s girlfriend says she had shown sympathy to the beast while they had
been still together” The article reported that the ex-boyfriend had said that
he was “stunned” after “learning she is to wed the notorious criminal”. The
article contained quotes from the “fiancée”, who was not named, which were
described as being “told” to another newspaper. The article contained a photo
of the “fiancée” in which her face was pixelated.
3. The
second article was described as an “exclusive” and stated that the “fiancée”
was “wooed” after receiving a picture of a rose from the imprisoned man, and
that a source, described as having been “in a relationship” with the “fiancée”,
had said that he painted her a landscape. The article described how the woman
had been in contact with another prolific serial killer, which led to the man
described as her fiancé contacting her in 2019. The source also stated that the
man was “claiming he was going to give her half of the £4,500” he had received
as compensation whilst in prison. The article described the woman as “a huge
music and reality TV fan”, and also referred to comments the woman had
reportedly “told” another newspaper. The article contained a photo of the
woman, where her face was obscured by her hair, as well as a picture of a
flower and bird with the caption “Serial killer [name] turned to art to try and
woo the woman and they are now engaged”.
4. The
complainant, the woman referred to as the man’s fiancée, said that the articles
were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She said that both articles referred to
an ex-boyfriend, but that she had not been in a relationship that matched the
description given of the man and believed that the source had been lying about
their identity and the information he had given the publication. In particular,
she said she had not been in a relationship for a long time before she had
begun speaking to the imprisoned man. She also said that she was not engaged to
the man, and was simply his friend. In addition, she stated it was inaccurate
to report she had “told” the other newspaper any of the comment quoted within the article, and that the article the
quotes were taken from were subject to a separate complaint.
5. The
complainant also said that the second article was inaccurate as the man had
never sent her any artwork and that she did not know anything about the
compensation. Furthermore, she said that she was not a fan of music and reality
TV.
6. The
complainant also stated that the article, and approaches made to her intruded
into her private and family life. She also said that the images from the
article had been taken from her private Facebook page, though acknowledged that
they were profile pictures which could have been publicly viewed. She said,
however, that as the rest of her Facebook was private the newspaper should have
been aware the two visible pictures were also private. She said that her
Twitter page, where a further photo had come from, was public.
7. The
complainant also complained that a journalist from the publication had acted in
contravention of Clause 3. The complainant provided a text she had sent to the
publication on 18 May after a request to call her in which she stated: “do not
contact me again”. She said she received several missed calls on this date from
unknown numbers. The complainant also said that, whilst at her brother’s house
on 20 May, she answered the door to a journalist who asked first for her
brother and, when she stated he was not in, said he wished to speak to her. The
complainant said that, when asked, the journalist identified himself as working
for the publication. The complainant said she then told the journalist to leave
and close the door, but that he asked her, through the closed door, whether she
was sure she did not want to speak to him. The complainant said the same
journalist had also spoken to her mother, some of their neighbours and a person
who worked at the Post Office.
8. The
publication said that upon receipt of the complaint it had contacted the source
again, and as a result of the responses he provided, it no longer had faith in the validity of the
information originally supplied, and therefore deleted both of the articles. It
also apologised for any distress caused and offered to publish a standalone
correction which would appear on the news homepage for 24 hours and then be
archived and searchable in the normal way:
On 17th
May and 19th May, we published articles which reported on claims from a man who
we said was the ex-boyfriend of Levi Bellfield’s fiancée. We have been
contacted by Levi Bellfield’s fiancée who has advised that the articles were
inaccurate, and furthermore, she was not in a relationship with the source of
the claims. We accept this, and have apologised for the error and removed the
articles from the website.
9. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2, and said that the images used
in the newspaper were publicly available on the complainant’s social media at
the time of publication. It also said that it had taken efforts to ensure that
the complainant was not identifiable from the images by pixelating her face.
10. The
publication also apologised for any upset that it had caused by attempting to
contact the complainant for comment. It said that whilst she had asked for
communication to cease via text, it considered she may be more amenable to an
approach in person. It also said that it had understood that the complainant
had spoken to another newspaper.
11. The
complainant did not accept the resolution – she said it was inaccurate to
describe her as the serial killer’s fiancée in the correction as she was simply
his friend, and that she wanted compensation.
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.
Mediated
Outcome
12. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
13.
During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to print the following
correction and pay the complainant a sum of compensation:
On 17th
May and 19th May, we published articles which reported on claims from a man who
we said was the ex-boyfriend of a woman reported to be Levi Bellfield’s
fiancée. We have been contacted by this woman who has informed us she is not Mr
Bellfield’s fiancée. She has advised that claims in the articles were
inaccurate, and furthermore, she was not in a relationship with the source of
the claims. We accept this, and have apologised for the error and removed the
articles from the website.
14. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.
15. As the complaint was successfully mediated,
the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had
been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 20/05/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/08/2022
Back to ruling listing