Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09775-23 Rizwan v Daily Mirror
Summary
of Complaint
1. Syed Rizwan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code in two articles published on 13 January headlined:
2. The
headline of the first article appeared on the newspaper’s front-page and was
accompanied by two images of the complainant, captioned: “SHOCKING Syed Rizwan with dead lion in South Africa.
Inset, the Mirror’s [journalist] confronts him”.
3. The
article continued on a two-page spread which spanned pages six and seven, under
the headline “On hols to KILL”. At the top of the two-page spread was a banner,
which read “MIRROR TRACKS DOWN AN UNREPENTANT HUNTER”, and the strapline “British trophy killer
defends shooting wild beasts for fun”.
4. The
article was an interview with the complainant about his hunting practices. It
reported that the complainant “accepted that many think trophy hunts are
controversial but said they don’t understand everything that goes on”, adding
that the publication’s campaign was “wrong” and not “helping the animals” but
“putting them more in danger”. It reported that the complainant said that the
hunt industry protects wild creatures from poachers; “dismissed claims of
dwindling lion numbers”; compared African hunts to UK pheasant shoots where the
birds are “reared for the hunt”; and said it was “stupid” for “anti-trophy”
people to object the killing of a lion but not a deer.
5. The
article also reported information posted by the complainant on his Facebook
page. It stated that the complainant – a “father of three” – listed his hobbies
as “hunting” and “fishing” on his Facebook page next to “a profile picture of
him holding the mane of a dead lion in South Africa”. It then reported that the
complainant “removed” this image “once contacted by the Daily Mirror”. It then
stated in “another post” on Facebook, the complainant wrote “out with the
little hunter again” next to “dozens of images of his son at hunts in the UK,
including one of the youngster smiling next to a dead deer”.
6. The
article named the town where the complainant lived; identified the complainant
as the director of a named company; and noted that “his car number plate ends
with the letters GUN.” It was accompanied by a series of photographs: three
showed the complainant with his “trophies” from hunting and two showed the
complainant outside his home speaking with a journalist. The second of these
images included the front of the complainant’s vehicle and showed the final
three letters of his number plate.
7. The
first article also included a text box, titled “What the law says”, which
stated that “the Convention International Trade in Endangered Species bans the
trade, import and export of the body parts of endangered animals, other than in
exceptional circumstances”. It then stated that “animals killed by trophy
hunters [were currently] exempt” and a Bill addressing this was currently
passing through Parliament.
8. A
similar version of the first article also appeared online, under the headline
“EXCLUSIVE: Brit trophy hunter poses with dead lions and has 'GUN' car number
plate”, with a sub-headline which said as follows: “Syed Rizwan, 44, has been
on hunts all over the world. He claimed the trophy hunting industry protects
wild creatures, such as rhinos, from falling into the hands of poachers”. The
online version of the article, when reporting on “what the law says” about
trophy-hunting, said that despite “increasing threats to many species, there is
a loophole allowing the movement of hunting trophies in the internal agreement
on animal protection”.
9. The
second article under complaint was a leader column which was critical of the
complainant’s conduct. This article was accompanied by two images of the
complainant standing next to dead animals.
10. Prior
to the publication of both articles, on 21 November 2022 and on 11 January
2023, a reporter acting on behalf of the publication attended the complainant’s
home. The complainant said that the approach and conduct of this journalist
breached Clause 3 of the Editors’ Code. He said that his wife had made clear to
the reporter at the time of the first approach that he did not wish to comment.
The complainant said that he had spoken directly with the reporter when they
made the second approach to his home. He said that during the conversation, he
made clear to the reporter that he did not wish to speak, but they continued to
question him. Therefore, he said that the newspaper had ignored two clear
requests to desist from questioning him, in breach of the terms of Clause 3.
11. The
complainant said he was the victim of a “doxing” campaign by the publication,
and the first article represented an unjustified intrusion into his private
life in breach of Clause 2. He said that the article revealed the location of
his family home: it identified the town where he lived and his company which,
he said, was registered at his home address. The complainant also said that the
article breached Clause 2 as it contained photographs of him standing outside
his home. Further, he said that it contained a photograph of his car’s number
plate – while it was partially obscured, the last three letters were clearly
visible and therefore people in the local area would be able to identify him as
the car’s owner.
12. He
also said that photographs of him had been obtained from his private Facebook
page and published in both articles without his consent, in breach of Clause 2.
He also said that the reference to his child within the first article
represented a breach of Clause 6, and referred specifically to the terms of
Clause 6 (v), which states that editors should not use the notoriety of a
parent as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.
13. The
complainant said that the first article misrepresented the comments he provided
to the reporter, in breach of Clause 1. He said that his comments were taken
out of context and not reported “verbatim”. He said that his comment that “they
don’t understand everything that goes on” was directed at journalists that
covered this topic rather than members of the public, and this was not made
clear in the article under complaint. He also said that his comment about the
double-standards in attitudes to hunting in the UK – involving the regular
shooting of deer, pheasant, and partridge – was taken out of context. He also
denied that he called anti-hunting campaigners “stupid”. He further denied that
he “dismissed claims of dwindling lion numbers” and expressed concern that the
article omitted to make clear that “lion hunting pays for most lion
conservation”.
14. The
complainant also denied that he “removed” a specific image “once contacted by”
the publication and said that this inaccurately implied that he was embarrassed
by the image.
15. In
addition, the complainant said that the first article was inaccurate to report
that “despite the increasing threat to many species, there is a loophole
allowing the movement of hunting trophies in the international agreement on
animal protection”. He said that this was the case because national governments
have the power to ban trophy import and exports, and the UK was in fact
planning on banning such imports – though any ban would not apply to Northern
Ireland. The complainant also denied that the “Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species [CITES] bans the trade, import and export of the body
parts of endangered animals, other than in exceptional circumstances.” He said
that the actual aim of CITES was to “ensure that international trade in
specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten the survival of the
species” and that the export of species threatened with extinction was
permissible should there be “the prior grant and presentation of an export
permit”.
16. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code, and denied that the
conduct of its reporter represented a breach of Clause 3. The publication
provided IPSO with a copy of recordings made by the journalist during both
approaches to the complainant’s home. In the first recording, it noted that the
complainant’s wife did not explicitly state that her husband did not wish to
comment. Instead, she indicated that she would pass the reporter’s contact
details on to the complainant:
Reporter:
Hiya. Is Syed Rizwan in?
Complainant’s
wife: He is not in. Can I take a message?
Reporter:
Do you know how I get hold of him?
Complainant’s
wife: He is not here.
Reporter:
Do you have a telephone number that I could call him on?
Complainant’s
wife: Where are you from?
Reporter:
I’m calling from the Daily Mirror newspaper. I just want to speak to him about
a hunting trip that he had been on.
[…]
Complainant’s
wife: Can I speak to him and take your number.
Reporter:
Yeah. Sure. Sorry to call like this. Thank you. If you could […] message me.
Can he receive messages on his phone?
[….]
Complainant’s
wife: I don’t want to say much […] because I don’t know if [he] wants to share
with you
Reporter:
Yes, that’s my telephone number […] if you could ask him to message me. I would
be grateful to talk to him. Thank you. Cheers
The
publication noted that it did not receive any communication from the complainant
after its first approach which would indicate that he did not wish to be
approached for comment. The reporter
therefore approached the complainant for comment at his home address a second
time, and had the following exchange with the complainant:
Reporter:
I’m [reporter’s name] from the Daily Mirror […] would it be okay to have a
quick chat?
Complainant:
Yeah, hold on […] Yes, madam?
Reporter:
Hiya. I did send you a message.
Complainant:
Ah yeah, I was on a hunt abroad […]
Reporter:
I just wanted to have a chat with you about your sort of side of the story
about this.
Complainant:
I really don’t want to say anything about it. The problem is: I have friends
who have gone through this procedure. And at the end, nobody likes it. You
never publish the things what we say […] I have seen this with my friends and
what happened after that, they didn’t like it.
[…]
Reporter:
I just want to know why you participate in those hunts.
Complainant:
I don’t want to answer this, to be honest.
Reporter:
It’s just that some people get very upset about the animals that have been
killed. There are not many lions left.
Complainant:
How do you know about all of these things?
Reporter:
What do you mean?
Complainant:
How do you mean about there not being many lions left? What about the other
things people are shooting in this country? What difference does it make to you
when a life has been taken? Whether it be a lion or a deer? What difference
does it make?
Reporter:
Okay. That’s an interesting point. Because some people could say that lions are
decreasing in numbers.
Complainant:
No […] first of all I don’t want to talk about it, but this information is
wrong.
Reporter:
Okay. That’s why I want to ask you: when you went recently which animals did
you kill?
Complainant:
I don’t want to tell you anything. You keep forcing me. And I know what I’m
saying. First of all, I’ve noticed the film cameras […] you were parked here
for a long time, waiting for me to come out so you can interview. I’m not
scared of anybody. I’m just telling you…
Reporter:
It’s because I was trying to make sure that we could speak to you.
Complainant:
What if somebody doesn’t want to talk to you?
Reporter:
Well. I now know you don’t. But I messaged you. I left a message with your
wife.
Complainant:
No. Now I don’t want to give any information.
Reporter:
Okay. But we are going to publish the story now.
Complainant:
We don’t care […] You can publish it. But I’m not going to say anything about
it.
Reporter:
Okay. Fine. I tried. I left a message. I’ve come here twice now. I’ve spoken to
you.
Complainant:
I understand what people are doing about it but what I don’t understand: why
only me? There are people in this country are shooting deer, pheasant, and
partridge every day. Why don’t you go to their house and ask them?
[…]
Complainant:
Of course. When there is no interest left for people to protect those animals
then poachers will obviously go there and kill all of those animals. Because
nobody is protecting them; there is no interest in them […] First of all, what
is left in the wild is completely different than what is bred. Like for this
country […] Let me explain. These pheasants they shoot, they are not wild
pheasant. They release [and] rear these pheasants just for the shooting. That’s
another topic [about] whether they are supposed be doing this or not. But wild
pheasants are there. Very few of them. All the other pheasants, they will live.
I don’t know what to say. But they rear them for this sport, right? And then
they release and shoot [these pheasants]. So that is not affecting […] the
population of the wild pheasant […] same goes with all animals in Africa.
Everything is fenced…
[…]
Reporter:
Okay. I appreciate you talking to me but as I say…
Complainant: I would have spoken to you […] the problem is
what I’ve seen with my friends. That’s why I didn’t like this […] My friend
said anything we have said, nothing has been published. Everything wrong was
published. Everything against us was published. [This] is true […]
[…]
Reporter:
Yeah, the paper. We are campaigning…
Complainant:
Why are you campaigning against it? Can I ask you a question?
Reporter:
Yeah. Because numbers are dwindling…
[…]
Reporter:
Okay. Fine. Alright. I appreciate your time.
Complainant:
No problem.
17. The
publication noted that the reporter had introduced themselves during both
visits and explained the purpose of her visit. While it accepted that the
complainant told the reporter that he did not wish to comment several times
during their conversation, it said that he had also willingly and voluntarily
continued to engage with the reporter for 15 minutes – as was demonstrated by
the recording. It added that the complainant had asked the reporter a series of
questions about hunting and engaged in open conversation with the reporter. It
said the complainant was entitled to end the conversation at any point and
close his front door, which he did not, and the reporter would have respected
this request to desist. It said that the recording demonstrated that the
conduct of its reporter did not constitute harassment, intimidation or
persistent pursuit.
18. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2, or that the article included
sufficient information to identity his home or reveal its exact location. Nor
had the complainant made a specific request to the reporter for this
information not be published. In any event, it noted that his address was
already in the public domain; it had been published on the complainant’s own
company website and featured on Companies House.
19. The
publication also disputed that the complainant’s Facebook page was private. It
provided screenshots of the complainant’s Facebook, which showed that the
photographs published in the article had been available publicly at the time of
the article’s publication. It also noted that the complainant had shared a
photograph of his vehicle, which displayed the full number plate, on his open
social media accounts.
20. The
publication did not accept that the terms of Clause 6 were engaged: the
articles did not name the complainant’s son, nor did they include any images
showing him. In any event, it noted that the complainant had posted photographs
of his son holding a firearm alongside animals that had been killed on his open
and publicly available Facebook page.
21. With
regard to Clause 1, the publication said that the article was an accurate
report of the interview with the complainant – as demonstrated by the audio
recording. It did not accept that it had taken the complainant’s comments out
of context. In the recording, the complainant had said “everybody has the right
to say whatever they want […] they don't know everything which is behind it” in
response to the reporter saying that hunting was “controversial and some people
are against it”. It also noted that the complainant said: “what about the other
things people are shooting in this country, what difference does it make what
life has been taken […] whether it is a lion or a deer?” and questioned the
reporter on the difference between the hunting of certain animals. It also
noted that the complainant used the term “stupid” during his conversation with
the journalist.
22. The
publication further said that the complainant had told the reporter they were
“wrong” to say that lions were decreasing in number and denied that lions were
on a list of threatened species. In addition, the publication noted that the
complainant did not tell the reporter during their conversation that “lion
hunting pays for most lion conservation”, therefore it was not inaccurate for
an article covering the reporter’s interaction with the complainant to omit
this. In any event, it was unable to ascertain whether this was factually
accurate.
23. The
publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate to report that the
complainant had “removed” a specific image after being contacted by the
publication. The complainant had updated his open Facebook profile picture, a
few hours after he had spoken to the reporter, and it provided a screenshot to
IPSO to demonstrate this.
24. Finally,
the publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate to describe the
current legislation which allows the movement of hunting trophies in certain
circumstances as a “loophole”. In order
to support it position, the publication shared a paper from the House of
Commons Library on the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill.
Relevant
Clause 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.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
25. The
Committee first considered the concerns raised under Clause 3. This Clause is
intended to protect people from repeated unwanted and unjustified approaches
from members of the press, and makes clear that journalists should not continue
to contact people when asked to desist. The Committee had regard to the two
recordings provided by the publication. It did not consider that the
complainant’s wife had made a request to desist; instead, she had indicated
that she would pass the reporter’s details onto her husband, and had not stated
that he did not wish to speak to the reporter. Further, the Committee noted
that in the recording provided, the complainant acknowledged that he had
received the reporter’s message. Therefore, at the time of the second approach
to his home, that complainant had not made a request that the publication
desist from contacting him for comment, or approaching him at his home, or used
the opportunity afforded to him by the publication prior to the second approach
to do so.
26. During
the second approach to his home, the complainant had indicated during their
exchange that he did not wish to answer certain questions posed by the
reporter, and that he disagreed with her decision to approach him for comment.
However, the Committee noted that the complainant never expressly asked the
journalist to leave his property or to stop asking him questions. Indeed, he
had continued to speak to the reporter and had in fact asked her a number of
questions on a range of issues, therefore prolonging the conversation. On this
basis, the Committee did not conclude that the publication had persisted in
contacting the complainant after being asked to desist from doing so, or that
the reporter had acted in a harassing or intimidating fashion. There was no
breach of Clause 3.
27. The
Committee next turned to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2. The
screenshots from the complainant’s Facebook page provided by the publication
had showed that the images included in the articles under complaint were
publicly available prior to the article’s publication. Regardless of whether
the complainant had updated his privacy settings after being contacted by the
newspaper, the information had been available in the public domain at the time
of publication. The publication was entitled to report on information placed in
the public domain and the Committee did not establish that the photographs
contained any private information about him. The publication of this
information did not therefore represent an intrusion into the complainant’s
private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.
28. The
Committee next considered whether the photographs taken of the complainant
outside his home breached Clause 2. The complainant said they identified him
and revealed his address. The Committee noted that these photographs had
revealed the complainant’s likeness and showed him in conversation with the
reporter; this was information which could be seen by the members of the public
from the public road. The Committee also noted that the complainant’s full
address had not been reported. Rather, the article only named the town in which
he lived, and the further information in the article – a photograph of the
corner of his home – was not sufficient, in the Committee’s view, to reveal the
exact location of the complainant’s home in the manner he suggested. They noted
that, at any rate, the complainant’s full address appeared on his company’s
website, and was therefore in the public domain. In these circumstances, the
Committee found that the complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in respect of this information and there was no intrusion into the
complainant’s private life by its publication. There was no breach of Clause 2.
29. The
Committee did not consider that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of
privacy over the last three letters of his vehicle’s registration number. It
considered this to be the case as most of the car’s registration number had
been pixellated; the vehicle would be visible to people passing by his home a
public road; and he had previously published photographs of this vehicle on his
open social media account. Nor did the Committee consider that the reference to
his company in the first article represented a breach of Clause 2: the article
identified him in the context of his professional role as a director of the
company, and this information was publicly available; this was not private
information. There was no breach of Clause 2 on these two points.
30. The
Committee noted that the publication had not identified the complainant’s
child. The Committee considered that the brief and limited reference to the
child in the first article did not represent either details of the child’s
private life or an unnecessary intrusion into the child’s time at school in
breach of Clause 6.
31. The
Committee next considered the concerns raised under Clause 1. The Committee
acknowledged that the editing process might, on occasion, mean that verbatim
comments by individuals are altered for publication, but also noted that the
Code requires that any such changes do not misrepresent the comments of the
individual in a significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted manner. In
this instance, the recording provided by the publication showed that
complainant had said: that people in general “don’t understand everything that
goes on” in response to a direct question about how “many people” find the
practice “controversial”; had discussed the double-standards in attitudes to
hunting, stating that it was “stupid” that people objected to the killing of
certain animals (for example, zebras) and not others (for example, deer); and
denied that “lion numbers” were falling. These comments were accurately
reflected in the article under complaint. In these circumstances, the Committee
was satisfied that the publication had taken sufficient care under Clause 1 not
to publish inaccurate or misleading information, and that no inaccuracy was
established. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
32. In
addition, the Committee did not consider that the omission of the claim that
“lion hunting pays for most lion conservation” rendered the first article
significantly inaccurate or misleading. This claim had not been made during his
conversation with this reporter and did not materially affect the accuracy of
the article, which was a report of the complainant’s support for trophy hunting
– it was clear from the article, at any rate, that the complainant considered
trophy-hunting to be a positive activity. There was no breach of Clause 1.
33. Further,
the Committee did not consider that the first article was significantly
inaccurate to report that the complainant had “removed” a specific image after
being contacted by the publication: the complainant had updated his Facebook
profile picture, after the reporter had contacted him, so that people viewing
the page would not immediately see the image in question. There was no breach
of Clause 1 on this point.
34. Finally,
the Committee did not consider that the first article was inaccurate to characterise
current relevant legislation as containing a “loophole”, where it allowed for
the movement of hunting trophies in certain and specific circumstances. Nor did
it consider that the article misrepresented the legislation covering the
imports of hunting trophies in a significantly inaccurate, misleading, or
distorted manner: the Convention International Trade in Endangered Species
relates to the trade in specimens of selected species to certain controls
(including through a licensing system). There was no breach of Clause 1 on
these points.
Conclusion
35. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
36. N/A
Date
complaint received: 15/01/2023
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/08/2023
The Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
