Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09940-21 Louise Hough v dailypost.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Louise Hough complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
dailypost.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4
(Intrusion into grief or shock) and Clause 5 (Reporting suicide) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Devastated wife tells how
husband took his own life with a shotgun after being overwhelmed with patients
ill or dying of Covid at their care home”, published on 11 September 2021.
2.
The article reported that the complainant’s late husband had died by suicide
“after the care home they were running became overwhelmed by Covid”. It
included an interview with the complainant, and explained that she had
“demanded a Welsh specific inquiry into coronavirus”. The article explained she
had joined “a group of families in Wales calling for a Welsh inquiry into the
pandemic called the Covid Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru group” as she was
“furious” with the Welsh government and believed “a series of failings by the
Welsh Government and local health boards led to virus running riot in care
homes”. The article stated that complainant’s care home had been subject to
cases of Covid amongst the staff and residents; of the latter, many had died.
It stated that the problems of running a care home during the pandemic “took a
terrible toll on [the complainant’s husband]”. It quoted comments by the
complainant in which she described the pressures of running a care home at the
time. The complainant was also quoted as saying that: “My husband committed
suicide” and that he “got his shotgun and shot himself”.
3.
The complainant said that the article intruded into her privacy in breach of
Clause 2. She said that she had agreed to give her story to a journalist for
another newspaper in the same publishing group. The article she had agreed to
involved her telling her story along with multiple other people in order to
raise awareness around the campaign of the Covid Bereaved Families for Justice
Cymru group, who were seeking to establish a Wales-only inquiry into the
handling of the pandemic. She noted that the group article had been published
by the other newspaper two days before the article under complaint, and that
this same newspaper had then published – without her consent – an article that focused
on her story several hours before the article under complaint.
4.
She said that she had only consented for the information regarding the death of
her husband and her personal circumstances to be published within the context
of the group article. The complainant said that the article under complaint,
which focused on her story alone rather than the collective experiences of her
fellow campaigners, was substantially different from the context in which she
had consented for her story to be published. She said, therefore, that the
newspaper had published information over which she had a reasonable expectation
of privacy without her consent in breach of Clause 2.
5.
The complainant also considered that the article breached Clause 4 for the same
reasons. Furthermore, she said that the article had been syndicated to several
other newspapers, which she had not consented to.
6.
The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 5, as she considered
that it focused on her husband’s suicide and the method of his suicide in a
sensationalist manner.
7.
Finally, the complainant also said that the article was inaccurate in breach of
Clause 1 because it gave the impression her husband was a patient at a care
home, rather than an owner.
8.
The publication did not accept a breach of the Code; however, it apologised for
the distress caused and removed the article during direct correspondence with
the complainant’s representative. It said that the topic of both the group
article and the article under complaint – the promotion of an inquiry into the
handling of the coronavirus pandemic in Wales – was an extremely important
issue that demanded the necessary coverage and consideration by those in
positions of power. It said that it was motivated to publish the article under
complaint by journalistic and public interest considerations only.
9.
The publication also said that the complainant did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy over the information included in the article. It said
that the original article had included a report which looked at the members of
the group, one of whom was the complainant. The initial article, which was not
the subject of complaint, had contained all the quotes that had been published
in the article under complaint. The publication said that as this information
was in the public domain, as well as being covered by other news sources
previously, it did not consider that it was intrusive to tell the complainant’s
story again. The publication provided examples of other articles which had
reported on the complainant’s husband’s death and contained the same images. It
also noted that the complainant had given further solo interviews since the
article under complaint had been published. The publication said, therefore,
that the information under complaint was already within the public domain prior
to the publication of the article under complaint, and had been willingly
disclosed by the complainant, and therefore it was entitled to republish it.
10.
The publication reiterated its regret for any distress caused, and said that
this was not the intention in publishing the article. In addition, the
publication said that it was common for articles and information to be shared
within the publishing group the newspaper belonged to, and that it had no
control over public editorial content being published by other newspapers. It
said that, in any case, syndication was not a matter that fell under the
Editors’ Code.
11.
The publication did not consider that the article engaged Clause 5.
12.
The publication said that the article made clear that the complainant’s husband
was not a patient as it stated in the first sentence that she and her husband
“were running” the care home.
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
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
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.
Findings
of the Committee
13.
The Committee first recognised the distressing circumstances that the
complainant and the group she belonged to had been through, and offered its
condolences. The Committee noted that the complainant was concerned about the
syndication of the original article both outside the newspaper’s publishing
group and within the publishing group. Whilst the Committee acknowledged her
concerns, this was not an issue which in itself fell within the Code and
therefore not something on which the Committee could make a ruling. The role of
the Committee was to find whether the actions of the newspaper had breached the
terms of the Clauses of the Code cited by the complainant.
14.
In order to consider whether there had been an intrusion into the complainant’s
private life, the Committee had to consider whether the complainant had a
reasonable expectation of privacy over the information in the article; the
complainant’s own public disclosures of information; and the extent to which
the material complained about was already in the public domain or would become
so. The article quoted comments by the complainant in which she spoke about the
personal circumstances and her feelings surrounding her husband’s death – which
could be information over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
However, this material had previously been published in the original group
article and linked report several days earlier, with the complainant’s consent.
Where this information was already in the public domain with the consent of the
complainant, its republication in the article under complaint did not
constitute an intrusion into the complainant’s privacy. The publication of the
information in a further article that focused exclusively on the complainant’s
story did not raise a breach of Clause 2.
15.
The Committee acknowledged that the complainant had been surprised and upset by
the republication of her comments about her husband’s death, which was a matter
of regret, and it welcomed the publication’s removal of the article as a
positive response to the complaint. However, it considered that the information
had been presented in a sympathetic, factual light within the article, and
placed in the context of the complainant’s campaigning work. It did not
consider that there was a failure to handle publication sensitively, and there
was no breach of Clause 4.
16.
Clause 5 states that excessive detail must not be used when reporting on cases of
suicide, in order to prevent simulation. The article had identified the method
of suicide. It did not, however, include further details about the manner of
death. Whilst the Committee acknowledged that the headline reference to the
method of her husband’s death had caused her upset, this did not amount to
excessive detail. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 5.
17.
Finally, the Committee noted that the complainant’s husband was described as
running the care home multiple times within the article. It did not consider
that the article gave the misleading impression that he was a patient within
the care home and there was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusion(s)
18.
The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
19.
N/A
Date
complaint received: 15/09/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/02/2022
Back to ruling listing