Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09834-21 A man v thesun.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. A man
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thesun.co.uk
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) and
Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “FISTS OF FURY Moment yob with ‘better punches than Tyson Fury’
floors bouncer in savage fight outside pub”, published on 13 September 2021.
2. The
online article reported on a fight outside a pub in Essex. It said that footage
showed the moment “three yobs square[d]” up to a bouncer, who then adopted a
“boxer stance” and “catches one [of the three] with a savage hook that knocks
him out cold”; the video showed the moment of contact and the individual “lying
down, motionless” on the floor. The article included a number of still images
from the video which it stated had gone “viral” on social media with over
30,000 views on Twitter. The article described those involved in the incident
as “thugs” and said that two individuals had been arrested by Essex Police for
assault.
3. The
complainant, the father of the individual knocked unconscious, said the article
presented a misleading account of the incident in breach of Clause 1
(Accuracy). He said it made no reference to the actions that preceded the
incident and implied criminality on the part of his son by describing him as a
“yob” and a “thug”; his son was not involved in the fight but was rather
attempting to de-escalate the situation.
4. In
addition, the complainant said the publication of the video was insensitive in
breach of Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), particularly where the
video showed the moment his son was knocked unconscious, and a still image
revealed the extent of his injuries. He
also said that the coverage represented a breach of Clause 9 (Reporting of
crime) in the light of ongoing criminal proceedings and potentially constituted
contempt of court.
5. The
newspaper did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said the article
reported the content of a publicly-available video, which had been uploaded
onto social media three days prior to publication and attracted over 30,000
views; it did not apportion blame and the omission of details preceding the
recording did not render the story inaccurate or misleading. It said that the
article’s characterisation of the complainant’s son as a “yob” was not
inaccurate or misleading in circumstances where he was clearly involved in the
incident and where the video showed a violent street brawl that had resulted in
police intervention and arrests. It added that this characterisation was
reflective of comments made on social media prior to publication.
6. The
newspaper did not accept that the article’s publication breached Clause 4; the
complainant’s son was not named or identified, with the injuries he had
sustained not visible. The newspaper said that it did not consider it necessary
or appropriate prior to publication to obscure or pixelate the video or images
used given that the low resolution of the footage ensured none of the
individuals featured were identifiable.
7. The
newspaper did not accept that the article had engaged the terms of Clauses 9 as
it had not included any references to a relative of an individual accused of
crime.
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 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.
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.
The
Public Interest
There
may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be
in the public interest.
The
public interest includes, but is not confined to:
-
Detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.
- Protecting
public health or safety.
- Protecting
the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or
organisation.
- Disclosing
a person or organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any
obligation to which they are subject.
- Disclosing
a miscarriage of justice.
- Raising
or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of
impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public.
- Disclosing
concealment, or likely concealment, of any of the above.
There is
a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
The
regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public
domain or will become so.
Editors
invoking the public interest will need to demonstrate that they reasonably
believed publication - or journalistic activity taken with a view to
publication – would both serve, and be proportionate to, the public interest
and explain how they reached that decision at the time.
An
exceptional public interest would need to be demonstrated to over-ride the
normally paramount interests of children under 16.
Findings
of the Committee
8. In
cases of grief or shock, Clause 4 states that publication should be handled
sensitively. The complainant said that the publication of the video of the
incident had been insensitive. The Committee noted that the footage had been
freely available and circulating on social media prior to publication for
several days prior to its publication in the article under complaint. In
addition, the Committee did not consider the complainant’s son identifiable: he
was not named and the quality of the video too poor to render him identifiable
to readers who were unaware of his involvement in the incident. In such
circumstances, where the complainant’s son was not identifiable and the footage
was so widely available prior to publication, the Committee concluded that its
re-publication in this context did not represent a failure to handle
publication sensitively, in breach of Clause 4.
9. The
Committee then turned to the concerns raised under Clause 1. The complainant
had raised concerns that the article had described his son as a “yob” and a
“thug”; implying a level of criminality and violence on his part. The footage
of the incident showed that the complainant’s son had been involved in the
incident and this had formed the basis of the publication’s characterisation of
him as a “yob” and a “thug”; the Committee did not establish that this was
inaccurate or misleading. The article had not apportioned blame but instead described
the incident from the information included within the video. The newspaper was not obliged to report the
events leading up to the incident, nor did the omission of this information
render the article inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1.
10. The
purpose of Clause 9 is to provide protection to family and friends of
individuals convicted or accused of crime. As no such individuals were
identified in the article, the terms of this clause were not engaged and there
was no breach.
11.
Finally, the Committee noted any concerns about contempt of court were outside
the parameters of the Editors’ Code and its own remit. As such, the Committee
made no ruling in reference to this aspect of the complaint.
Conclusion(s)
12. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
13. N/A
Date
complaint received: 13/09/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/12/2021
Back to ruling listing