Decision of the Complaints Committee – 09645-19 Evans v
Cornwalllive.com
Summary of Complaint
1. Lucie Evans complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that Cornwalllive.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or Shock), Clause 5 (Reporting of
suicide) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Perfect dad and husband with 'wall of gambling debts' killed
himself”, published on 21 December 2019.
2. The article reported on an inquest which heard that a
man, Jowan Evans, had taken his own life after he could “no longer cope with an
‘accumulating wall of debts’”. The article reported that the man, a father of
three, had accumulated debts from gambling and had ‘"significant financial
problems’". The sub headline stated “Jowan Evans bet £111,000 online in 11
years”, and the article went on to report that Mr Evans had spent more than
£111,000 in online bookmakers and betting shops. It said that he was understood
to have “hanged himself” in a wooded area 800 metres from his car which he had
left in a car park. It reported that police investigators had discovered a note
in his van in which he had referred to his secret gambling addiction. The
article featured a quote from a Detective Sergeant, who said Mr Evans “had
gambled more than £110,000 and made a net loss of £53,000 through the various
online sites”, and a quote from the Assistant Coroner who had said “these
gambling sites operated on a pay-as-you-bet basis with money coming directly
out of people's bank accounts without any deposits required onto the sites
themselves, making it quite easy to gamble”. The article featured several
photographs of the man; the first pictured him holding his child with the
caption “Jowan Evans with his son [name]”. The article also featured a
photograph of him holding another child with the caption “Jowan Evans was a
loving dad and husband who could not cope with a mounting gambling addiction”.
3. The complainant, the wife of the deceased, said that the
article was inaccurate. She said that her husband did not enter or use betting
shops; he had only used online bookmakers. She also said that the note was not
found by the police in his van, as reported. Rather, the police had searched
the van on the evening of his disappearance, but they had missed the note and
she had found it two days later. The complainant also said that her name had
inaccurately been reported as “Lucy”.
4. The complainant said that the newspaper had published
private information regarding the amounts of money her husband had gambled and
borrowed from his father. She said that the family had a reasonable expectation
of privacy in respect of this information, that it was of no benefit for the
public to know this, and publication of this information represented a breach
of Clause 2. She also considered that the publication of these figures
represented an intrusion into the family’s grief and shock in breach of Clause
4, and gave an unnecessarily negative portrayal of her husband’s character.
5. The complainant was also concerned that publication of
the information regarding her husband’s suicide, namely where he had parked his
car, where his body was located and how he had ended his life was insensitive
in breach of Clause 4. She considered that the publication of these details and
specifying the method her husband had used represented unnecessary detail when
reporting suicide in breach of Clause 5.
6. The complainant said that publication of the images of
her husband with his children, aged two and five, represented a breach of
Clause 6. The complainant said that she had given permission for the
photographs to be used for an earlier article in March which appealed for
information on her husband’s disappearance. The complainant also confirmed that
she had contacted the publication on Facebook in July about publishing an
article on her husband’s death and his struggles with addiction and gave
consent for the photographs to be used for the purposes of that article.
However, she said that this did not constitute consent for their inclusion in
the article under complaint which centred on his inquest and the details of his
suicide. While she accepted that she had shared a post of her family
photographs on her personal Facebook page, no one from the publication had
approached her to ask for permission to use the photographs for the purposes of
this article.
7. The publication denied any breach of the Code. It said
that the article did not state that Mr Evans had used walk-in betting shops. It
said the article featured several references to online bookmakers, which clearly
demonstrated that the bets were made online and not in person. It said its
reporter had advised that the reference to the note was read out during the
inquest hearing, and it provided the reporter’s notes taken at the time which
said that “a note was found in his car”. The publication agreed to amend this
section of the article as well as the incorrect spelling of the complainant’s
name, but it did not consider that these represented significant inaccuracies
requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
8. The publication denied that the publication of the
figures regarding Mr Evans’ expenditure or borrowing represented a breach of
Clause 2 or Clause 4. It said that both figures were heard at the inquest, and
therefore it was entitled to report them. The publication provided a copy of
the reporter’s notes which it said demonstrated that this information was heard
at the inquest.
9. The publication denied that the information published in
the article breached the terms of Clause 5. It said that all the published
details regarding Mr Evans’ suicide were heard at the inquest and did not
amount to excessive detail of the method used under the Code. It also noted
that Devon and Cornwall Police had published a status on 18 March which said:
'Body found in Lostwithiel’ Police have this afternoon found
the deceased body of a man in the Greatwood Plantation in Lostwithiel.
Enquiries continue but at this time this death is not being treated as
suspicious. The family of missing man Jowan Evans have been made aware of this
development.
10. The publication also denied that publishing the
photographs of Mr Evans with his children represented a breach of Clause 6. It
said that the complainant had given consent for it to use these photographs in
a previous article, in which she had appealed for help to find her missing
husband and although it could not produce this consent in writing, the
publication noted that the complainant had accepted this was the case. The
publication also said that it was later approached on 19 July by the
complainant on Facebook about publishing an article on mental health awareness,
her partner’s addiction, and a fundraising campaign that had been set up for
his children. The publication highlighted that the journalist had asked whether
photographs could be used, to which the complainant responded, “Of course you
are welcome to use any photos”. This article was then published online under
the headline “Wife tells how she lost husband to a 'monster' after discovering
his hidden gambling addiction” on 20 July. The publication also said that the
photographs of the children were featured in both the aforementioned online
fundraising campaign and on social media and were therefore publicly accessible.
It considered that given the clear connection between the content of the
article under complaint and that of the previously published articles, as well
as the fact that the photographs were publicly available, republishing these
images did not represent a breach of Clause 6. However, the publication removed
the photographs from the online articles as a gesture of goodwill in a bid to
resolve the matter.
11. The complainant said that the publication’s offer to
remove the photographs and to amend the reference to the note was not enough to
resolve the matter. She reiterated her position that the permission she had
previously given to the publication to publish the photographs of the children
did not constitute consent for them to be published in an article about his
inquest that featured insensitive and unnecessary detail.
Relevant Code Provisions
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and
approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled
sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings.
15. Clause 5* (Reporting Suicide)
When reporting suicide, to prevent simulative acts care
should be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method used, while taking into
account the media's right to report legal proceedings.
16. Clause 6* (Children)
i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at
school without unnecessary intrusion.
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.
*The Public Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they
can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
3. The regulator will consider the extent to which material
is already in the public domain or will become so.
Findings of the Committee
17. Firstly, the Committee wished to express its condolences
to the complainant for her loss.
18. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that the
newspaper had inaccurately reported that the police had found the note left by
her husband, when in fact she had found it. The reporter’s notes, which the
newspaper had provided, recorded that “a note was found”, but did not record
who had found it. It appeared from the
reporter’s notes that the reference to the note having been found in the car
had immediately followed references to the police operation and that the
publication had misunderstood from the context that the police had found the
note. It was regrettable that the error had caused concern to the complainant,
but in the context of the article, which centred on the findings made at the
inquest proceedings, the Committee concluded that whether the note was found by
the police or by the complainant was not a significant point. Accordingly, the report did not constitute a
failure to take care and a correction was not required under the terms of
Clause 1. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point, but the Committee
welcomed the offer from the publication to amend the online article.
19. The article reported that the complainant’s husband had
spent money in “online bookmakers and betting shops”. The Committee noted that
this single reference was ambiguous with regard to whether the “betting shops”
were also online. There were, however, multiple references throughout the
article to the betting being online or on online websites. These references,
coupled with the subheadline which reported that Mr Evans had “bet
£111,000 online”, and the Assistant
Coroner’s comments published in the article, which referred specifically to
online gambling, were sufficient in the Committee’s view to make it clear that
Mr Evans had gambled online as opposed to in physical betting shops. There was
no failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information on this point
under Clause 1(i), and no correction was required under Clause 1(ii).
20. The publication accepted that it had misspelt the
complainant’s first name and it had amended the article accordingly. While
unfortunate, the misspelling of the complainant’s first name did not represent
a significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
There was no breach of Clause 1, but the Committee welcomed the publication’s
prompt action in amending the article.
21. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that
reporting the amount Mr Evans had gambled had been intrusive in breach of
Clause 2. However, this information was heard at the inquest. Inquests are held
in public, and publications have a right to report information that is heard at
the coroner’s court. In these circumstances, and where the information did not
directly relate to the complainant, the complainant did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy regarding this information. There was no breach of
Clause 2 on this point. Further, the complainant said the publication of this
information and information relating to the circumstances of Mr Evans’ death
was insensitive in breach of Clause 4. The terms of Clause 4 make clear that
its provisions “should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings”. As
previously noted, this information was heard at the public inquest. Publication
of the information about the amount Mr Evans gambled and how he died was
handled sensitively as a report of the evidence that had been heard during the
course of the legal proceedings. As such, there was no breach of Clause 4.
22. The Committee then considered whether the publication of
information about how Mr Evans had died breached the terms of Clause 5
(Reporting of suicide). The purpose of Clause 5 is to prevent the publication
of specific details which may encourage simulative acts, while accounting for
the right of publications to report legal proceedings. The complainant had
expressed concern that the article had reported the method by which Mr Evans’
had taken his life, where he had left his car, and his proximity to his
vehicle. The article reported the cause of death, which was the finding of the
Coroner’s court. It did not include excessive details of the method; where he
had left his car, his proximity to his vehicle, and the approximate location of
the death were not elements of the method of suicide in this case, but related
more generally to the circumstances of the death. There was no breach of Clause
5.
23. Photographs of the complainant’s children had been
published to accompany the article which reported on the cause of Mr Evans’
death and his addiction, and which therefore concerned their welfare. The
Committee has previously ruled that Clause 6 of the Code applies in
circumstances where photographs of children are published to accompany articles
which involve their welfare and the question for the Committee was whether
there was consent from a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult for
the photographs to be published. The complainant had approached the publication
in July 2019 about the prospect of publishing an article about her fundraising
activities following her husband’s death and his struggles with addiction. She
had made the photographs available to the publication for the purpose of that
article, which was subsequently published without complaint from the complainant.
The Code provides that IPSO, when considering whether there has been a breach
of Clause 6, will take into account the extent to which material is in the
public domain at the date of publication. In this case, the photographs had
previously been provided by the complainant for publication and were placed in
the public domain, with the complainant’s consent, at the time of publication
of the earlier article. The Committee carefully considered all the
circumstances and, in particular, the consent for publication which had been
given by the complainant in July 2019; that the photographs were re-published
only 5 months later; and that the two articles were not materially different in
nature as both reported on Mr Evans’ death and his addiction to gambling. In light of all these considerations, the
Committee concluded that the consent given by the complainant in July 2019
applied to the re-publication of the photographs in the article under
complaint. There was therefore no breach of Clause 6. Nonetheless, the
Committee welcomed the publication’s removal of the images during IPSO’s
investigation, once it had been made aware of the complainant’s concerns.
Conclusion
24. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action required
25. N/A.
Date complaint received: 23/12/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/08/2020