Decision of the Complaints Committee – 11234-21 A man v
liverpoolecho.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. A man complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that liverpoolecho.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock),
Clause 6 (Children), Clause 7 (Children in sex cases), Clause 9 (Reporting of
crime), Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault), Clause 12 (Discrimination),
Clause 13 (Financial journalism), Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article published in November 2021.
2. The article reported on court proceedings against the
complainant in which he admitted to operating equipment beneath the clothing of
another without consent. It described the complainant as a “notorious upskirt
pervert” and “serial sex offender”, who had been “arrested after taking photos
on his phone of a young woman's legs, crotch and bottom”. It said that he had
“taken photos up women's skirts for 20 years”. It contained a statement from
the complainant’s solicitor who said that the complainant’s “problems were
connected to sex abuse he suffered as a child”. The article named the
complainant and gave his street level address and included several photographs
of him.
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1 as whilst he had been convicted of taking photographs of
women these had been done in public places; he only had one conviction for
“upskirting” in 2020. He said, therefore, that he had not been taking photos up
women’s skirts for 20 years. The complainant said he was not aware of how many
convictions he had.
4. The complainant also said that the article intruded into
his privacy in breach of Clause 2. He said that, as a victim of sexual assault
and an autistic person, he had been granted lifelong anonymity and that nothing
about him could be published by newspapers. He said that publishing his name,
photos and address was a breach of his privacy.
5. The complainant also said that the article breached
Clause 11 and Clause 7 as it had identified him by name as suffering sex abuse
as a child.
6. The complainant also complained under Clause 3, Clause 4,
Clause 6, Clause 9, Clause 12, Clause 13 and Clause 14 for the above reasons.
7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that it was not inaccurate to describe the complainant’s crimes as having
targeted women for over 20 years, where his court cases had been reported on
since 2004 regarding crimes that occurred in 2003. The publication provided
copies of some of these articles which included references to the complainant
taking photos of women’s lower halves, including their underwear, and taking
notes of what underwear they were wearing. It said it was therefore not
inaccurate to report that he had “taken photos up women's skirts for 20 years”.
8. The publication also said there was no breach of Clause
2. It said that the photographs of the complainant were taken in a public place
– outside the court on a public street – where he did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, and did not disclose any private information.
Furthermore, it said it was entitled to report the complainant’s name and
partial address as the details were heard in open court.
9. The publication said that Clause 11 was not breached. It
noted that Clause 11 allows for newspapers to identify victims of sexual
assault where “there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do
so”. The publication said that the complainant’s defence lawyers had referred
to the complainant’s previous abuse at many of the complainant’s court
appearances, including the court case reported on in the article. The
publication said that section 1(4) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992,
stated: “Nothing in this section prohibits the publication or inclusion in a
relevant programme of matter consisting only of a report of criminal
proceedings other than proceedings at, or intended to lead to, or on an appeal
arising out of, a trial at which the accused is charged with the offence”. It
said that, therefore, there was both adequate justification and it was legally
free to publish the information.
10. The publication said that the complainant’s concerns did
not engage Clause 3, Clause 4, Clause 6, Clause 7, Clause 9, Clause 12, Clause
13 and Clause 14 for the above reasons.
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 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.
Clause 6 (Children)*
i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at
school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school
without permission of the school authorities.
iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or
photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a
custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material
involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children
or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a
parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's
private life.
Clause 7 (Children in sex cases)*
The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify
children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.
In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence
against a child -
i) The child must not be identified.
ii) The adult may be identified.
iii) The word "incest" must not be used where a
child victim might be identified.
iv) Care must be
taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused
and the child.
Clause 9 (Reporting of crime)*
i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of
crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are
genuinely relevant to the story.
ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially
vulnerable position of children under the age of 18 who witness, or are victims
of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
iii) Editors should generally avoid naming children under
the age of 18 after arrest for a criminal offence but before they appear in a
youth court unless they can show that the individual’s name is already in the
public domain, or that the individual (or, if they are under 16, a custodial
parent or similarly responsible adult) has given their consent. This does not
restrict the right to name juveniles who appear in a crown court, or whose
anonymity is lifted.
Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault)
The press must not identify or publish material likely to
lead to the identification of a victim of sexual assault unless there is
adequate justification and they are legally free to do so. Journalists are
entitled to make enquiries but must take care and exercise discretion to avoid
the unjustified disclosure of the identity of a victim of sexual assault.
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.
Clause 13 (Financial journalism)
i) Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists must
not use for their own profit financial information they receive in advance of
its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others.
ii) They must not write about shares or securities in whose
performance they know that they or their close families have a significant
financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or financial
editor.
iii) They must not buy or sell, either directly or through
nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have written recently
or about which they intend to write in the near future.
Clause 14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential
sources of information.
Findings of the Committee
11. The publication had provided examples of court reports
that documented the complainant’s crimes from as early as 2003. These contained
multiple accounts of the complainant having taken photos of women “beneath the
waist”, including their underwear. The complainant said he had only received
one conviction for “upskirting”; however, where the complainant had been
convicted of multiple crimes relating to his taking of inappropriate photos of
women’s body parts without their consent, the article was not inaccurate and
there was no breach of Clause 1.
12. Clause 11 explicitly states that where there is adequate
justification and the press are legally free to do so, a victim of sexual
assault may be identified, and , there was no indication that the court had
imposed reporting restrictions on coverage of the complainant’s court
appearances. The complainant’s lawyer had raised the assaults against the
complainant as mitigating evidence during criminal proceedings that did not
relate to said assaults against the complainant. Where the article was a report
of these open criminal proceedings, and the mitigating evidence formed part of
these proceedings, the Committee found that there was adequate justification.
Where the information had been stated in open court during criminal proceedings
that did not relate to the assault against the complainant, the newspaper was
legally free to publish the information. On this basis, there was no breach of
Clause 11.
13. Where the information in the article, including the
complainant’s crimes, name and street level address, was heard in open court,
the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy over this information.
In addition, the photos in the article showed the complainant in a public
place, walking down the street. There was no information within these images
over which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and he was
not in a location where he would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; they
disclosed the nature of the complainant’s appearance, but this did not
represent an intrusion into his privacy in circumstances where the Committee
had found that the publication was entitled to identify him as the defendant in
the case. There was no breach of Clause 2.
14. The complainant had said that Clause 3 was breached for
the above reasons. Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave
when gathering news, including the nature and extent of their contacts with the
subject of the story. The complaint did not relate to this, and there was no
breach of Clause 3.
15. The complainant also said that the article intruded into
his grief and shock. Clause 4 requires that in cases involving personal grief
or shock, enquiries are made with sympathy and discretion, and that publication
is handled sensitively. Whilst the complainant was distressed that the article
had reported on the abuse he suffered as a child, the article did not report on
the incident in a way that was insensitive, but simply recorded what was said
in court. We did not identify grounds to investigate a possible breach of
Clause 4.
16. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 6
and Clause 7. Clause 6 and Clause 7 only apply to people aged 18 and under at
the time the article is published. Therefore, these Clauses were not engaged.
17. Clause 9 generally relates to the identification of the
friends and family of individuals who are accused or convicted of crime. As the
complainant was the defendant within the article, there was no breach of Clause
9.
18. The article had neither irrelevantly referred to, nor
gave a prejudicial or pejorative reference to, the complainant’s race, colour,
religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness
or disability. There was no breach of Clause 12.
19. Clause 13 relates to journalists not using for their
own, or others’, profit, financial information they receive in advance of its
general publication. The complainant had not suggested that this was the case
and there was no breach of Clause 13.
20. Clause 14 relates to the moral obligation of journalists
to protect their confidential sources of information. The article reported on
the complainant’s public court proceedings, and he had not been contacted as a
source. On this basis there was no breach of Clause 14.
Conclusions
21. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
22. N/A
Date complaint received: 09/11/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/04/2022
Back to ruling listing