Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09943-21 Louise Hough v walesonline.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Louise Hough complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
walesonline.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 “So many people were ill or
dying with Covid in my husband's care home he turned a shotgun on himself and
took his own life”, published on 10 September 2021.
2.
The article reported that the complainant’s late husband had died by suicide
after the strain of “running their private care home when the pandemic hit”. It
included an interview with the complainant and explained that she was
“demanding a Welsh specific inquiry in to [sic] coronavirus” as she 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 the care home had been
subject to cases of Covid amongst the staff and residents; of the latter, many
had died. It stated that this “had a terrible impact on [the complainant’s
husband] who tragically took his own life”. It reported that the complainant 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” and
described her as being “furious” with the Welsh government. 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 along
with multiple other people in the context of an article reporting on 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 this group article had been published two days prior to the article under
complaint. She said that she had only consented for the information in the
article surrounding the death of her husband and her personal circumstances to
be published within this context. 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.
4.
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, and she was concerned that
the publication may have profited from syndicating the story. The complainant
also said that, after contacting the publication to complain about the article,
the journalist had called her to ask whether he could republish it. She said
the journalist and editor had acted in a cavalier manner and had not apologised
or acknowledged that the article had breached the Code, nor did it give an
explanation as to why or how the article had been published by other
newspapers. She supplied the direct correspondence her representative had with
the newspaper, in which her first contact person at the newspaper had stated
“I'm very sorry to hear it ha[d] upset” the complainant and her family, and
that it was not the journalist who had sent the article to the other newspapers
who had published it.
5.
The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 5, as she considered
that it focused on her husband’s suicide and the method used in a
sensationalist manner.
6.
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 the co-owner.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
The publication said that all approaches to the complainant when writing the
article had been made with sympathy and that publication was handled
sensitively. It reiterated its regret for any distress caused and said that
this was not the intention of 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.
10.
The publication did not consider that the article engaged Clause 5.
11.
The publication said that the article made clear that the complainant’s husband
“ran” the care home when it stated that the complainant “and her beloved
husband were running their private care home when the pandemic hit”.
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
12.
The Committee first recognised the distressing circumstances that the
complainant and the group she belonged to had been through, and offered their
condolences. The Committee noted that the complainant was concerned about the
syndication of the article both outside the newspaper’s publishing group and
sharing within the group. Whilst the Committee acknowledged her concerns, these
were not issues which in themselves 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.
13.
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 from the complainant in which she spoke about
the personal circumstances and her feelings surrounding her husband’s death –
which could be information for 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.
14.
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. The
Committee also noted that the complainant felt that the journalist and editor
had been cavalier after she made a complaint about the article, which she
considered to be insensitive. The publication had denied this, saying that
communication between the parties had been amiable and sensitive. The Committee
noted that the communication complained of had occurred following the
publication of the article, and was not therefore an enquiry or approach made
in the process of gathering material for an article. In any case, while there
were conflicts in the respective accounts of the complainant and the
publication over the content of the telephone conversation which the Committee
could not resolve, the written communications between the parties which were available
to the Committee demonstrated that the newspaper had responded with sensitivity
and sympathy, apologising for the distress publication of the article had
caused. The Committee did not identify grounds to establish a breach of Clause
4.
15.
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.
16.
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)
17.
The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
18.
N/A
Date
complaint received: 15/09/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/02/2022
Back to ruling listing