Decision
of the Complaints Committee 11214-21 Zaman v The Mail on Sunday
Summary
of Complaint
1. Nazifa
Zaman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail
on Sunday breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Corbynista forced to say sorry for joining 'cops are
assassins' demo”, published on 7 November 2021.
2. The
article reported on the attendance of an MP “at a protest at which police were
branded ‘assassins’ and activists called for ‘no cops’.” It included a
photograph showing the MP at the protest; the complainant was also shown in the
photograph, wearing a mask, along with several other attendees at the protest.
The complainant was not identified or named within the article.
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same form, under the headline
“Corbynista Labour MP Zarah Sultana is forced to apologise after joining ‘cops
are assassins’ protest”.
4. The
complainant said that the photograph included in the article intruded upon her
privacy, in breach of Clause 2. She said that this was the case as the
photograph was taken from her private Instagram account, and the publication
had not asked her permission before publishing it.
5. The
publication said it did not accept that the publication of the photograph
represented a breach of Clause 2. It said that the image showing the
complainant had been widely circulated in local political circles and had been
sent to Labour party whips. It also said that it had not obtained the image
directly from the complainant’s social media; rather, it had been sent to the
publication by an individual who had received the image after it had been
widely circulated. The publication then noted that the complainant had 715
Instagram followers, and that it was unlikely that she knew them all
personally. She had, therefore, it said, disclosed the photograph to a large
group of people and had no reasonable expectation of privacy over its
subsequent republication.
6. The
publication also said that the photograph did not reveal anything private about
the complainant; it merely showed her attending a public protest. It noted that
the protest took place in the centre of a city, and provided a photograph
showing the protest location – which was a large open square, in close
proximity to shops and restaurants.
7. The
complainant said that she had no issue with people knowing of her attendance at
the protest, but she reiterated that she had not given the publication permission
to publish a photograph which had appeared on her private Instagram account.
She then said that her social media followers were carefully vetted, and that
she knew the majority of them personally to ensure that photographs posted on
her private social media accounts would not be more widely circulated.
8. The
complainant also said that the publication of her photograph had revealed her
personal and political opinions to an audience of over 2 million people; this
was private information over which she considered she had a reasonable
expectation of privacy. She acknowledged that she had held public facing
positions in student politics; however, she noted that she had attended the
protest in a personal capacity only, rather than as a representative of any
political group. She accepted that the visit of an MP to the area may be a
matter of local interest, however she considered the publication of her
photograph to be disproportionate to any public interest in publicising this
visit.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
9. The
Committee noted that the terms of Clause 2 make clear that, when considering an
individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the
complainant’s own public disclosures of information. The Committee considered
first the extent of the complaint’s disclosure of the information; and second, the
extent and nature of the information disclosed.
10. The
photograph showed the complainant’s attendance at the protest, which she had
indicated that she did not consider to be private, and her association with the
other individuals shown in the photograph.
11. The
Committee noted that protests are generally public in nature; this one had
taken place in a central shopping location and placards were being held in
order to draw attention to and publicise the purpose of the protest. The
complainant would have been plainly visible to passing members of the public.
While the complainant said that the publication of the photograph had revealed
her personal and political opinions without her consent, it had not revealed
any information beyond that which was visible to anyone attending or viewing
the march, or wishing to take a photograph. The Committee did not consider that
the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to this
information.
12. The
Committee, therefore, concluded that:
the photograph did not show the complainant in a situation over which
she had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the photograph did not
contain information which amounted to an intrusion into her private life. The
publication had not, therefore, been obliged to obtain consent prior to
publication of the photograph. There was
no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusion(s)
13. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
14. N/A
Date
complaint received: 09/11/2021
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 07/04/2022
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.
Back to ruling listing