Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10070-22 Warner, Eddleston & Eddleston v
mirror.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Ellie
Warner, Nat Eddleston and his father, Nathaniel Eddleston complained to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 2
(Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the articles headlined “Gogglebox Ellie's
boyfriend crash pictures - devastating scenes as he 'fights for life'”,
published on 21 March 2022 and "Gogglebox's Ellie Warner comforted by pals
at pub in break from boyfriend's bedside", published on 15 April 2022.
2. The
first article reported that Gogglebox star Ellie Warner’s boyfriend Nat
Eddleston had been hit by a car and was “fighting for his life”. It said that
the article was the “first look at the scene of [the] serious crash” and
contained a photograph of the car involved in the collision, taken after the
incident; it showed the front windscreen had been smashed. The article also
included a photograph of the crash scene at the time of the incident, which
showed several emergency service personnel attending Nat Eddleston on the floor
after the accident; his image had been pixelated.
3. The
second article reported that Ellie Warner had been seen being supported by
friends at a local pub after her boyfriend Nat Eddleston had been involved in a
car accident. It said that she had been seen for the first time since the
accident and reported that “in pictures obtained by The Sun, the Channel 4 star
was seen wearing ripped jeans and a green military jacket” however the article
did not feature those specific pictures. The article included a number of other
photographs of Ellie Warner and Nat Eddleston.
4. The
complainants said that the first article breached Clause 2 and Clause 4 by
including a photograph of the crash scene where Nat Eddleston was receiving
treatment. They considered this intruded into Nat Eddleston’s privacy and was
an intrusion into the grief and shock of the family. The complainants said that
the photo showed Nat Eddleston moments after being hit by a car receiving
lifesaving treatment, and regardless of the pixelation of this image, the
publication of the image amounted to an intrusion at a very difficult time for
Nat Eddleston’s partner and family. They said that any individual who was
unconscious and seriously injured had a reasonable expectation of privacy,
without images of them being published in the press.
5. The
complainants said that the second article had also breached Clause 2 and Clause
4. They said that the article included a photo of Ellie Warner which was taken
without her knowledge on one of her first outings after the accident. It said
that by following her, photographing her, and publishing the photos, this
breached the terms of both Clauses.
6. The
complainants also said that there had been a breach of Clause 3. They said that
two days after the accident, a journalist who identified themselves as working
for Mirror Online posted a letter through Nat Eddleston’s father’s (Nathaniel
Eddleston) door asking him for a comment and had parked outside his house. They
said that he had found this upsetting and intrusive in breach of Clause 3. The
complainants also added that the journalist spoke to neighbours.
7. The
publication apologised to the complainants for any distress or upset caused by
the story, but it did not consider there had been a breach of the Editor’s
Code. It said that in regard to the photographs in the first article, the
photograph of Nat Eddleston receiving treatment had been provided by a member
of the public who was present at the scene and care was taken by the
publication to obscure the image of Nat Eddleston. It accepted that he had a
reasonable expectation of privacy while receiving medical care but considered
that there was a public interest in publishing the image. The publication said
that it felt it was important to depict the scene in case any witnesses came
forward, to highlight the shocking nature of the incident and added that at the
time of publication the perpetrator was still actively being looked for by the
police.
8. The
newspaper said that any alleged breach of Clause 2 could be justified because
of the public interest, specifically “detecting, or exposing crime, or the
threat of crime, or serious impropriety, and protecting public health and
safety”. The publication provided the police’s appeal for witnesses, which had
been shared online and on social media on 19 March and said that the public
interest was considered prior to publication and as the police were actively
appealing for witnesses, the editorial decision was made that it was important
to include the image of the scene, with care taken to obscure the victim.
9. The
publication also said that Clause 4 of the Editors’ Code does not prohibit the
reporting of distressing circumstances and events, but rather sets out that
publication should be handled sensitively; it did not consider that there had
been a breach of Clause 4 in this instance.
10. In
regard to the second article, the publication said that all the photographs
included in the article were taken from public social media accounts and did
not represent a breach of Clause 2. The publication said that the article had
not been amended and the images the complainants were concerned about had not
appeared in any version of the article.
11. The
publication further said that the single approach made to Nathaniel Eddleston
by the letter posted through his door did not amount to a breach of Clause 3.
12. The
complainants said that the publication was mistaken that the police had still
been looking for the “perpetrator” at the time of publication and at no time
were the police looking for the driver. It said that this negated the
publication’s argument that the publishing of the picture had been in the
public interest.
Relevant
Code Provisions
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 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.
The
Public Interest (*)
There
may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in
the public interest.
1. 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.
2. There
is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
3. The
regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public
domain or will become so.
4.
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.
5. An
exceptional public interest would need to be demonstrated to over-ride the
normally paramount interests of children under 16.
Findings
of the Committee
13. The
complainants considered that the inclusion of the photograph of the crash scene
where Nat Eddleston was receiving treatment amounted to a breach of Clause 2.
The Committee appreciated that the publication of the photograph had caused the
complainants distress at what was already a difficult time and expressed its
sympathy for their circumstances. However, the Committee noted that the
photograph was very limited in detail, of a low resolution, and in practice
showed only a dark public street with two emergency service vehicles and
various unidentifiable people with their faces obscured. Although the posture
of two of the emergency service workers suggested that someone was on the
ground, a pixelated block at the bottom part of the image obscured what was
happening in that portion of the image. In its heavily pixelated form, and
given the low image resolution and the time of night it was taken, the image
did not reveal any information about the injuries sustained or the treatment
being received. There was no breach of
Clause 2 regarding the publication of the image in the first article.
14. The
Committee next considered the complainant’s concerns regarding Clause 4 in
relation to the photograph included in the first article. The Committee
recognised that the publication of the photograph was highly sensitive,
particularly so soon after the accident. However, in circumstances where the
article in which it was contained was a factual account of the accident; where
care had been taken to pixelate the image; and given the fact the image did not
show the injuries sustained or any treatment being received, the Committee
considered that the publication of the photograph had been handled sensitively.
While the image would have been upsetting for the complainants to see, the
Committee did not consider that its inclusion was insensitive. There was no breach
of Clause 4 on this point.
15. The
complainants had also said that the second article was in breach of Clause 2
and Clause 4; it said that the article included a photo of Ellie Warner which
had been taken without her knowledge on one of her first outings after the
accident. The publication had said that all photographs included in the article
were from social media and that the image the complainants were concerned about
had not appeared in any version of the article. The Committee noted that the complainant
did not dispute that the photograph about which they were concerned had not
appeared in the second article. Given this, there was no grounds for
investigation under Clause 2 or Clause 4 on this point.
16. The
complainants had said that there had been a breach of Clause 3 as two days
after the accident a journalist who worked for the Mirror Online posted a
letter through Nathaniel Eddleston’s door asking him if he would like to
comment on the incident. The Committee acknowledged that the complainants found
this upsetting given how soon after the incident the letter was sent; however,
one approach for comment through a polite letter did not amount to persistent
pursuit or questioning under the Clause. There was no breach of Clause 3.
Conclusion(s)
17. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
18. N/A
Date
complaint received: 27/05/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/11/2022
Back to ruling listing