Decision of the Complaints Committee – 09542-19, 09141-19
Bell v The Press (York)
Summary of Complaint
1. Gordon Bell complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Press (York) breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy), Clause 6 (Children) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) in articles
headlined “Gordon Bell jailed for six year ‘vendetta’ against ex-partner”
published on 3 May 2019, and “York man has jail term cut” published on 26
November 2019
2. The first article, which appeared online, reported on the
sentencing of a man – the complainant – following his conviction in March 2019.
It reported that he had been jailed for 16 months for a six year ‘vendetta’
against his former partner. It described how the court had heard that the
complainant had repeatedly breached a restraining order, by posting comments
and photos relating to a woman on social media and on internet websites. The
article reported that a new, more tightly defined restraining order had been
made which restricted the complainant’s use of the internet and social media
and included remarks made by the judge who said that the man’s behaviour meant
that he had “forfeited the right to use social media as anyone else does”. The
article also reported a personal statement from the victim, who said that the
complainant “…has run a vendetta against me for six years. Even after being
found guilty he didn’t stop his behaviour”. It reported that the man claimed to
live mostly in Lanzarote, but that he had also lived at an address in York. It
also reported a plea in mitigation made by the complainant’s representative who
argued against sentencing him to jail as he said that this would probably mean
the collapse of a cycling magazine he was starting.
3. The second article reported that the same man, who it
described as having ”…ran a six year ‘vendetta’” against his former partner,
had had his jail term reduced from 16 months to 14 months. It reported that he
had had been jailed in April 2019 after being convicted of four breaches of a
restraining order and explained the nature of the breaches. In addition, it
reported that that he had committed the offences within months of losing an
earlier appeal against a conviction of stalking the woman and a man. It also
repeated the victim’s personal statement included in the first article, in
which she said that the man “…has run a vendetta against me for six years”
4. The second article appeared online in the same terms with
the headline “York stalker Gordon Bell has jail term cut”. It was published on
25 November 2019.
5. The complainant said that the first article was
inaccurate; he was jailed for breaching his restraining order, not for
undertaking a “six year vendetta”. He said that it was also inaccurate for the
first article to report that the new restraining order restricted his use of
the internet and social media. He said that the second article was inaccurate
to report the prosecution’s claim that he had committed the offences within months
of stalking the woman and a man; he said that in 2015, he had been convicted
only of harassment of a woman, and produced a charge sheet which he said
confirmed this.
6. He also said that there were a number of inaccuracies in
both articles. He disputed that he had carried out a “six year vendetta”
against his former partner, as she alleged in her victim statement. He also
said that it was inaccurate to report in both articles that he had breached the
restraining order by posting comments and photos relating his ex-partner
online; the restraining order, which he disputed that he had breached,
prohibited him from posting photographs of his ex-partner’s family, and having
discussion about his ex-partner on any private website, which he said he did not
do. He said that it was not the case that he claimed to live mostly in
Lanzarote, and by reporting his street address, this intruded into his privacy
in breach of Clause 2. He said that the first article also intruded into his
privacy by reporting the comment made by his representative that jailing him
would probably mean the collapse of a cycling magazine he was starting.
Finally, the complainant also made a complaint under Clauses 6 and 9, as he
said that by naming him in both articles, members of his family could also be
identified.
7. In relation to the first article, the publication said
that the headline was based on the statement of the victim which had been
included in the article, and that the breaches of the restraining order had
continued a pattern of stalking and harassing behaviour as set out in court.
However, on receipt of the complaint, it offered to amend the headline to say
“Man jailed for breaching restraining order”, and to add a clarification to the
article as follows:
“The headline on this article had been changed from ‘Gordon
Bell jailed for six-year “vendetta” against ex-partner’ to ‘Man jailed for
breaching restraining order.’ Mr Bell was jailed after four breaches of a
restraining order, plus four months previously suspended for a stalking
offence”.
8. In relation to the second article, the publication
provided notes from the 2015 hearing which stated that “Mr Bell stalked both
his former partner and her then-partner in late November, early December
[20]13’” and that a Judge had said about the conviction that led to the
restraining order, that the complainant had been “convicted of stalking her and
a former partner”. In addition, a police press release said that the
complainant “followed her then new partner from York to his house in Leeds
where he threatened him.” This, in conjunction with the victim statement, gave
a basis in both the print and online versions of the articles to describe the
man as having run a “six year vendetta” against the woman. However, it accepted
that in the 2013 hearing the only person mentioned in the charge was the
complainant’s ex-partner. On this basis, towards the end of IPSO’s
investigation the publication offered to print the following correction:
“In a report of May 3, 2019, The Press reported that Gordon
Raymond Bell was convicted of stalking a man and a woman. While one of the
charges did involve two people, Bell was only convicted of stalking one
person."
9. The publication did not accept that any of the other
points raised by the complainant represented inaccuracies. In relation to the
first article, it noted that the copy of the new restraining order imposed on
the complainant following his most recent conviction, provided by the complainant,
made several prohibitions on what he could post on social media. It said that
it was not inaccurate to report that the breaches of the restraining order were
in relation posting online comments about his former partner; this was
specifically set out in the charges for which he was convicted. It said that
the rest of the points raised by the complainant had been heard in court and
had been accurately recorded in shorthand by a reporter who was present during
proceedings. Although the complainant disputed the veracity of the information
heard by the court, this did not make the article an inaccurate record of
proceedings.
10. The publication said that the complainant did not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information reported; it
was all heard in open court proceedings. It did not accept that Clause 6 or 9
were engaged; neither article referred to the complainant’s family.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a
parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's
private life.
14. 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
15. The headline of the first article was misleading as to
the reason for the complainant’s conviction; it gave the impression that the
complainant had been convicted for a course of conduct lasting 6 years, which
was not the case. This was a failure to take care not to publish misleading
information in breach of Clause 1(i). In the context of a court report, this
was significant and required correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
16. On receipt of the complaint, the publication offered to
amend the online headline, and to add a footnote to the article. The footnote
identified the original headline and the change that had been made, and was
offered on receipt of the complaint, which was sufficiently prompt. Publication
of the footnote alongside the article, so that it would be seen by anyone
reading the updated article, represented due prominence. As such, there was no
breach of Clause 1(ii).
17. In relation to the information contained in the second
article about the offence for which the complainant had previously been
convicted, the publication had relied on
a police press release and the notes of a court reporter, which had both
alluded to the complainant following a man and a woman. This, in conjunction
with the victim statement, gave a basis to report that he had carried out a
“six year vendetta”. While the complainant disputed the claim that he had
carried out a six year vendetta, the basis set out above meant that the
publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information
and there was no breach of Clause 1(i). However, to report that the complainant
had stalked a man and a woman, when in fact he had only been convicted of
stalking a woman, represented a significant inaccuracy in the context of a
court report was significant and required correction under the terms of Clause
1(ii) once the nature of the conviction had been confirmed.
18. The publication offered to add a footnote to the
article, which identified the previous inaccuracy and made clear that the
offence for which the complainant had been convicted related only to the woman.
Whilst this offer was made towards the end of IPSO’s investigation, the
footnote was offered once details of the previous conviction had been provided
and was sufficiently prompt. Publication of the footnote also represented due
prominence as it would make the position clear to any reader of the
article. On this basis, there was no
breach of Clause 1(ii).
19. In relation to the remaining points of alleged
inaccuracy, the complainant did not dispute that these had been heard in court,
or were recorded in court documents or in the various restraining orders
imposed on him. Although the complainant disputed the accuracy of what was
heard by the court, in circumstances where there was no dispute that these
points had been accurately reported in the articles, there was no breach of
Clause 1.
20. Newspapers are ordinarily permitted to report
information which is heard in open court. In this case, the complainant’s
address, the information about him claiming to live in Lanzarote and that he
was starting a cycling magazine, had all been heard during proceedings in open
court. There was no breach of Clause 2 in reporting this information. The
articles did not refer to the complainant’s family; the terms of Clause 6 and 9
were not engaged.
Conclusions
21. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i) in relation
to the first article. There was no breach of Clause 1(ii). There was no breach
of the Code in relation to the second article.
Remedial Action Required
22. The action proposed by the publication satisfied the
requirements of Clause 1(ii) for the reasons set out above and should now be
printed.
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.
Date complaint received: 26/11/2019
Date complaint concluded: 06/04/2020
Back to ruling listing