Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 11100-22 Banks v theboltonnews.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Christopher
Banks complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
theboltonnews.co.uk breached Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and
Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the following
articles and Facebook posts:
- An
article headlined “Bolton man denies 'vendetta' against Manchester City coach”,
published on 11 August 2022
- An
article headlined "Manchester City coach 'trolled' with email sack
threats, court hears", published on 11 August 2022
- An
article headlined "Jury unable to reach verdict in 'trolling' case:
retrial ordered", published on 12 August 2022
- A
Facebook post, which said “Christopher Banks gave evidence in his trial today”
and linked to an online article about the complainant which was headlined “Man
says he sent email about Manchester City coach over 'safeguarding concerns'”,
published on 11 August 2022
- A
Facebook post which said "’I was
completely confused. It destroyed me.’” and linked to the second article under
complaint, published on 11 August 2022
- A
Facebook post which said “Christopher Banks will go on trial again next year”,
which linked to the third article under complaint, published on 12 August 2022
2. The
first article, which appeared online only, reported on an ongoing trial at
Bolton Crown Court involving the complainant – who had been accused of sending
a threatening email to a Premier League football coach. The report detailed
what was said in court about the circumstances in which the email was sent. It
further named the organisation at which the complainant volunteered: “[the
complainant] also mentioned that he had worked with the [named organisation]
where ’safeguarding is a priority’."
The article included images of the complainant leaving court.
3. The
second article, which also appeared online only, reported on the same trial. It
said the complainant had been accused of “sending an electronic communication
with intent to cause distress or anxiety”. This article also included images of
the complainant leaving court.
4. The
third article, which also appeared online only, reported on the same trial, and
stated that: “Following a three-day trial at Bolton Crown Court a jury of six
men and six women were unable to reach a verdict and decide whether 40-year-old
Christopher Banks is guilty of sending an electronic communication with intent
to cause distress or anxiety or not.” This article also included an image of
the complainant leaving court.
5. The
complainant said that a journalist working on behalf of the publication had
breached Clause 3 during an encounter on the day of the court case. He said
that, as he was leaving court, he noticed an individual hiding behind a bus
stop who was taking photographs of him and asked, “did you just take my
photograph?”. He said that he found that behaviour alarming and distressing
because she was hiding behind the bus stop. The complainant further said that
he had asked her who she was, who she worked for, and why she had been taking
pictures of him, but that she ignored him and “fled” the scene. According to
the complainant, he had then attempted to approach her and continued to ask her
loudly who she was and her motive for the photographs. She continued to the
publication’s office without revealing her name or where she worked.
6. The
complainant later researched who the individual might have been and called the
news desk. The complainant provided IPSO with an audio recording of this
conversation:
Complainant:
Hi can I speak to [name] please?
Publication: She’s not available at the moment can I ask
for your name please?
Complainant:
Yeah I believe she’s just taken my picture at the Crown Court which I’m totally
fine with if the trial is being reported. What I don’t appreciate is her hiding
at a bus stop and taking my picture. I’m more than happy to come over to her,
she can approach them and take my picture at the Crown Court. So if you’d like
some pictures I can send you some pictures of myself. I can stand at the Crown
Court and she can take my picture. What I don’t appreciate is this cowardly
hiding at a bus stop and then running across the street away from me. It’s
pretty sub-par journalism to do that, so if you would like a picture…
Publication:
What’s your name please?
Complainant:
Chris Banks – Chris Banks
Publication:
Ok, no worries, I’ll tell you what Chris, if you like I can give you my email
address if you want to send the pictures to me?
Complainant:
You can use any pictures of me. I’m totally fine with you reporting the case
I’ve been prosecuted for. It’s 100% fine obviously no issues – from me – it’s
in the public interest to do so but just hiding at a bus stop – just speak to
me – I’m a human being. You can take my picture at the Crown Court if you want
to take it I’m a decent person, but then running away from me – what you doing,
what is this? It’s not Iraq, it’s not like I’ve got a death squad waiting round
corner. It’s ridiculous.
Publication:
Yeah I appreciate that, we do unfortunately have problems with defendants.
Complainant: No you’re going to have problems with
defendants who are drug dealers. Mine is no convictions, no arrests, a few
weeks from now I’m picking up an MBE for my community group, I’m here at the
allotment volunteering and I’ve never had a conviction or arrest in my life.
So, there was no need for that, it was just shoddy. Just speak to me – human
being. So would you like me to send some pictures you can use?
Publication:
Yeah can do if you’d like – yeah.
7. He
further said a journalist working on behalf of the publication was present at
court and said she was acting insensitively such as smiling and laughing with
the prosecution. He considered that this behaviour also breached Clause 3.
8. He also
considered the Facebook posts published by the publication represented
harassment in breach of Clause 3 as one of them said “I was completely
confused. It destroyed me” and another published his full name. He said that
other examples of court reports on Facebook did not include individuals’ full
names.
9. The
complainant further considered the first article’s reference to the
organisation he volunteered at to represent a breach of Clause 2, Clause 3, and
Clause 12, as well as the Facebook post which had also contained this reference
before it was edited and this was removed at a later date. He said publishing
the name of the organisation he volunteered at was of no relevance to the
charges against him and that this was discriminatory towards him. He further
considered the publication of his full name in the Facebook posts had breached
the publication’s usual procedures around reporting names in social media.
10. The
publication said it did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. Turning first
to Clause 3, the publication said that its journalists do not approach
defendants while trials are ongoing and do not have to make their presence
known. It said that, in line with the principle of open justice, it could cover
court cases without the defendant’s permission as this information was in the
public domain. The journalist took a photograph outside court, which they was
entitled to do under the Code, and was not done in a way to intimidate the
complainant. It did not consider the journalist’s actions represented
persistent pursuit or harassment.
11. The
publication then said the journalist did not tell the complainant her name or
the publication she was working on behalf of as, to the best of her
recollection, the complainant had not asked for that information. It said that
the journalist in question was very experienced and that, according to her
account of the interaction, the complainant chased her shouting “you have just
taken my picture”. She said that she saw an aggressive look on the complainant’s
face which led her to leave the scene quickly for her own safety. The
publication then went on to describe the risk involved in covering court
proceedings and that photographers take measures to keep themselves safe, due
to previous attacks. This was why, it said, the journalist had quickly left the
area around the court. The publication did not recall the complainant
mentioning on its subsequent phone call with the publication the journalist’s
actions had caused him distress, and said the call was followed up by a
“jovial” email with attached images of the complainant which he had offered to
provide the publication.
12. The
publication also said that the complainant was a defendant in a criminal trial
and, therefore, it was entitled to name him and the organisation he volunteered
at – whose name had been heard in court as part of the complainant’s mitigation
– both in the articles and Facebook posts. It further provided notes from court
which corroborated the reference to the organisation had been heard in court.
13. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 12, as it did not believe the
complainant had been discriminated against. It said it had published a true and
accurate account of court proceedings. It also did not accept a breach of
Clause 2 as both reference to his full name and the charity he volunteered at
were heard in court.
14. In
response to the publications’ account of the interaction, the complainant said
that he did not have an “aggressive” look on his face but was having an
emotional response to someone taking his picture hiding behind a bus stop, on a
very stressful day. He said that the recording of the call demonstrated that he
was distressed and upset in his voice. The complainant said he had no criminal
convictions, and that the journalist did not speak to anyone about the
interaction or report what happened to the police, and that it was him who
contacted the publication to express his distress at the interaction outside
court.
15. The
complainant noted that the reference to the organisation he volunteered at had
been removed from the article prior to IPSO having begun its investigation. The
publication asserted that this was because the name had caused confusion
amongst readers, rather than it being any admission that the Code had been
breached.
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
12 (Discrimination)
i) The
press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race,
colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical
or mental illness or disability.
ii)
Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless
genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings
of the Committee
16. The
Committee appreciated that there was a dispute over the precise details and
nature of the interaction between the complainant and the journalist outside
court, such as whether the complainant had asked the journalist to identify
themselves and who they worked for. It further noted that taking pictures of an
individual on a public street did not, in and of itself, represent a breach of
Clause 3; absent of a request to desist, photography is permitted by the terms
of Clause 3. The Committee went on to note that, during the phone call made by
the complainant to the newsroom on the day the interaction happened, the
complainant did not mention that the journalist had refused to identify
themselves. Rather, he appeared to be distressed by the fact that they had
taken a photograph of him from behind a bus stop and then left the location
hastily. The publication accepted that the journalist did not disclose their
name or publication to the complainant, and it was not in dispute that the
journalist had left the location quickly. It was the publication’s position
that the journalist did not recollect having been asked for this information.
17. The
Committee noted the publication’s position that there is a safety risk involved
for journalists covering court cases and that – mindful of the risk – the
journalist had left the area around court quickly. The Committee also noted
that the complainant’s depiction of events also broadly tallied with this, in
that he agreed that the journalist had quickly left after being asked if she
had taken a picture of the complainant – his subsequent phone call to the
publication had referred to her “running away”. Further, the Committee noted the
purpose of Clause 3’s requirement for journalists to identify themselves and
the publication they work for: to avoid situations where people are unable to
make requests to desist, or to complain, because they are unsure of who to
contact. In this case, while the journalist had not identified themselves, this
had not prevented the complainant from identifying the journalist and
contacting the publication to make it aware of his concerns. Taking all factors
into account and noting that the Committee was not in a position to know what
exactly was said outside court, and what exactly was heard by the journalist,
the Committee did not consider that there was a basis to find that the terms of
Clause 3 had been breached by a refusal on the part of the journalist to
identify themselves.
18. The
Committee considered the complainant’s concern that a journalist present at
court was smiling and laughing with the prosecution. Clause 3 generally relates
to specific interactions an individual has had with a journalist, such as
persistent questioning, telephoning, pursuing, or photographing individuals
once asked to desist. In this instance, there was no breach of Clause 3 on this
point.
19. The
Committee also considered whether the Facebook posts, which referred to the
complainant by name, breached the terms of Clause 3. While the complainant said
that the newspaper did not usually use full names on their social media posts,
this concern did not engage the terms of Clause 3, as this Clause generally
protects individuals from being harassed by journalists during the news
gathering process; it does not relate to concerns over the publication of
information which is already in the public domain via court proceedings. There
was no breach of Clause 3. The Committee also did not consider the name of the
organisation to represent a breach of Clause 3 for the same reasons.
20. The
Committee considered the complainant’s concerns raised under Clause 2. Clause 2
is engaged when information about which an individual has a reasonable
expectation of privacy has been published. The fact that an individual
volunteers at a particular charity was not, in the Committee’s view, private
information under the Code. The Committee further noted that these details had
been heard in court and therefore this information was in the public domain.
There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.
21.
Turning to the complainant’s concerns in relation to Clause 12, the Committee
noted that this clause is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by
the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender
identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability.
The Committee did not consider using the complainant’s full name or the
reference to the place he volunteered at constituted a pejorative, prejudicial,
or irrelevant reference to the complainant’s protected characteristics. There
was, therefore, no breach of Clause 12.
Conclusion(s)
22. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
23. N/A
Date
complaint received: 12/08/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 10/01/2022
Back to ruling listing