Decision of the Complaints Committee – 11344-20 A man v
express.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. A man complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy), Clause 6 (Children) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “Domestic abuse victim fled country
after ex granted access to kids”, published on 16 November 2019.
2. The article reported on the experiences of a woman who
“was forced to flee Britain with her […] children after fearing they would be
abducted by their abusive father [who suffered from a named mental health
condition]”. It reported that the woman “had half an hour to pack and head to
the airport for a new home in Cyprus” even though “she had sole custody of the
children… as she feared her ex would ignore visiting rights rules”. The article
described the former partner as abusive and said the woman had suffered “years
of abuse”. It included quotes from the mother which stated he suffered from a
named mental health condition and that she said the “problems started when her
ex refused medication for his mental illness”. The article contained a quote
from the woman who said “there were thre[e] times when he was physically
violent and he was also verbally abusive. He made death threats towards me.”
The article said the mother had “concerns her youngsters could be snatched from
school”. Neither the woman, the father, nor the children were named or
photographed in the article, but the number of children was referred to.
3. The complainant said that he was the father referred to
in the article and was complaining on his and his children’s behalf. He said
that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said that it was
inaccurate to state that he had been abusive to his former partner; he said that
he had never been violent towards the woman to whom he had not spoken or
seen in over ten years; nor had he been
convicted of domestic abuse or violence. The complainant said he had full
custody of the children from the day after the mother fled, and her custody had
been removed several months previously, and therefore it was inaccurate to
report that the mother had custody, or that he would ignore visiting rights. He
also said that the family court had ruled that there was no risk of him trying
to abduct the children, as reported.
4. The complainant also said a number of the quotes ascribed
to the woman in the article were inaccurate. He said it was inaccurate to
report that she had “half an hour to pack” as she had taken the children out of
school the day before. He said that the quotes had not distinguished between
comment and fact, and made the article unbalanced and biased.
5. The complainant also said that the article intruded into
his and his children’s private lives. He said that the content of the article
related to private family legal matters and that he believed that private court
documents on which there were restrictions had been shared with the newspaper.
He said that as there were reporting restrictions on these documents, he had an
expectation of privacy over them and the information that they contained.
6. The complainant said that, whilst neither him nor his
children were named, they were identifiable from the information contained in
the article. He noted that the article accurately reported the number of
children, as well as details of the family proceedings before the court, and
the country of the abduction location, and the investigations which had been
undertaken. He said he had been told that there was only one other case similar
to his in Northern Cyprus by the UK Foreign Office and UK Embassy in Cyprus,
and any other cases could be distinguished from his by their legal basis. He
also considered that the reference to his mental health diagnosis, and the
specific allegations which were the same as those heard in the court, allowed
readers to identify him. He said that an acquaintance of his who had knowledge
of his circumstances had identified him from reading the article and had first
drawn it to his attention.
7. The complainant also said that the article breached
Clause 6 as his children were identifiable and that reading the articles could
be harmful to them, by giving them unfavourable opinions of the courts,
himself, or their wider paternal family.
8. The complainant also said that the article breached
Clause 12 as it named his mental health disorder and he believed it was being
used as leverage within the article. He said that it demonstrated that the
mother was using his condition throughout court proceedings to prevent access
to his children, and the characterisation of him in the article as an abusive
father with a mental health condition was prejudicial and pejorative in itself.
9. The publication noted that the complaint was made over eight
months after the publication of the article, and that this delay, in addition
to lockdown, significantly hindered its ability to investigate. It said that
this delay, and the restrictions imposed by lockdown, meant that it was unable
to access the notes or documents that had been used to write the article in
order to support its position that it did not breach the Code.
10. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that none of the individuals referred to in the article were identifiable
and that it was not in a position to confirm whether the complainant was the
man referred to in the article because it had an obligation to maintain the
anonymity of the woman, who was a confidential source, and the children. The
publication said that, having undertaken a detailed review of their research
materials, it was their firm view that it would not be possible to share them
with IPSO, even in a redacted form, without revealing the identity of their
sources. However, it did say that it had
taken care not to report inaccurate information. It said that the journalist
liaised with a campaigner, who put her in touch with a mother who she spoke to
on the phone at various times over several months. It repeated that it was not
able to say whether the complainant was the father referred to in the article,
but said that all the allegations in the article had been verified and
corroborated by documentary evidence such as social work reports, counselling
notes, police reports of domestic violence, psychiatric reports, Court Orders,
and relevant communications from the abusive partner such as text
messages. It also said that the
documents the complainant had supplied showed he had custody of his children as
of January 2018. The publication said that as another article, by another
publication, which the complainant had also said was about him, had stated the
mother had fled “two years ago”. It said that this meant the mother would have
left in November 2017, when she had custody, and therefore it was not inaccurate
to report that the woman had concerns visiting rules would not be followed.
11. The publication said that the quotes from the mother
were clearly distinguished as comment, either by being in quotation marks or by
being prefaced by “she said” or “she claimed”.
12. The publication said that as neither the complainant nor
his children were identifiable, there could be no breach of Clause 2 or 6 and
emphasised that it would not confirm whether the complainant and his children
were the subject of the article. It said that the average reader or member of
the public would not be able to identify the complainant or his children from
the information in the article. It noted that the complainant accepted there
was at least one other case similar to his, and other cases of abduction that
had a different legal basis, and that the specifics of these cases were not
known to the general public. The publication stated that the complainant had
provided no evidence to support his complaint that the publication had gained
access to court documents which it was not entitled to see, or to which the
complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
13. The publication said that there was no breach of Clause
12 as the father’s mental health was relevant to the story, as the mother had
claimed that the problems started when he stopped taking his medication. It
also said that there was no prejudicial or pejorative reference to his mental
health.
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 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 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 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
14. Domestic abuse is an important and sensitive issue of
significant public interest and the press plays an important role in
highlighting the issue. However, the press has a responsibility to ensure that
it is reporting in a responsible and accurate way, and to balance the rights of
all individuals involved. The Committee also emphasised that it was not making
a finding on the accuracy of the allegations reported in the article. Its role
was to decide whether there had been a breach of the Editors’ Code.
15. The Committee considered the information provided by the
complainant during the course of its investigation and concluded that the
complainant was more likely than not the subject of the article. The Committee
proceeded to consider the complaint on that basis.
16. With regards to the accuracy of the article, whilst the
Committee noted that the publication felt unable to confirm whether or not the
complainant was the subject of the article, it was nevertheless required to
demonstrate that it had complied with its obligations under the Editors’ Code.
17. The Committee noted the publication’s position that it
was unable to access any documents that supported the accuracy of the article,
due to the time it had taken the complainant to bring the complaint to IPSO;
because it could not go to its office due to lockdown restrictions; and because
it had a duty to protect its confidential sources. The Committee acknowledged
that flexibility was appropriate in circumstances where Covid-19 had disrupted
working practices, but the pandemic could not be a justification for not
fulfilling the requirements of Clause 1 given that the publication had
published serious allegations which amounted to claims of criminality. In
addition, the complaint had been submitted well within the 12-month period
allowed under IPSO’s Regulations for the consideration of complaints about
online articles; the Committee did not consider that the existence of the
pandemic made it unreasonable or unfair to take forward the complaint.
18. The Committee
found that the article had stated as fact that the man in the article had abused
his ex-partner, and that he had been considered a risk of ignoring visiting
rights and abducting his children. The publication said it had verified all the
claims in the article and had set out the steps it had taken but could not
share its research materials without compromising its confidential sources.
Where the publication was not able to demonstrate that these statements were
established points of fact, the Committee concluded that the presentation of
these claims as fact, rather than disputed claims, amounted to a breach of
Clause 1(iv). The distinction was clearly significant given the serious nature
of the claims.
19. The article also contained several claims which had been
made by the mother and which were presented as direct quotes from her. They
were clearly distinguished as the comments of the mother, and not as
established fact, and the publication of these claims did not breach Clause
1(iv).
20. Whether and to what extent the information contained in
the article identified the complainant as the subject of the article to readers
was central to the complaints under Clause 2 and Clause 6. The Committee reiterated
the importance of freedom of expression in reporting the issue of domestic
abuse, and the importance of balancing one party’s right to tell their story
with any other relevant parties’ right to privacy. The complainant had said
that the information contained in the article about the number of his children;
the details of the proceedings before the court; and the allegations against
him from his former partner was sufficient to identify him to at least one
other individual. The Committee noted that the information regarding the family
proceedings and the specific allegations which had been made in the proceedings
would not generally be known and would not serve to identify him to
readers. With regard to other classes of
information, such as the information about the children, the Committee noted
that the article had been published at a national level which meant that this
information could potentially relate to a wide pool of individuals. The
Committee noted, further, that biographical information about the complainant,
such as his job or the part of the country in which he lived, had not been
included. With regard to the information which was more specific to the
complainant, including his medical condition, this would potentially identify
the complainant as the subject of the article to only a limited number of
people who had knowledge of his diagnosis. Taking into account the woman’s
right to freedom of expression; the fact that the article presented most of the
claims as her account (which the Committee acknowledged was challenged by the
complainant); and that the complainant and his children would not be readily
identifiable by the general reader of the article, the Committee concluded that
the newspaper had not failed to respect the private and family life of the
complainant or his children. There was no breach of Clause 2.
21. The relevant part of the Editors’ Code relating to the
complainant’s children was Clause 6(i), which states that all pupils should be
free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion. Having
found that the children would not be readily identifiable by the general reader
of the article, and given that it contained minimal information about the
children, the article did not represent an unnecessary intrusion into their
time at school. There was no breach of Clause 6.
22. Finally, the Committee considered the complaint under
Clause 12. The article had described the complainant by reference to a mental
health condition from which he suffered. The Committee did not consider that
the reference, which was not prejudicial or pejorative, breached Clause 12(i).
The Committee then considered whether it was genuinely relevant to the story.
The complainant had accepted that his ex-partner had referred to his mental health
in the family proceedings, which made the condition genuinely relevant to the
story which related, in part, to the findings which had been made by the court.
On this basis there was no breach of Clause 12.
Conclusion(s)
23. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(iv).
Remedial Action Required
24. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee
establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a
correction and/or adjudication. The nature, extent and placement of which is
determined by IPSO.
25. The Committee considered that there was a breach of
Clause 1(iv). The article had published a number of serious claims as
statements of fact without distinguishing them as such and in circumstances
where it did not feel able to demonstrate that they were true. In these
circumstances the Committee concluded that an adjudication was the appropriate
remedy.
26. The Committee considered the placement of this
adjudication. The adjudication should be published online, with a link to this
adjudication (including the headline) being published on the top 50% of the
publication’s homepage for 24 hours; it should then be archived in the usual
way. The headline to the adjudication should make clear that IPSO has upheld
the complaint, give the title of the publication and refer to the complaint’s
subject matter. The headline must be agreed with IPSO in advance.
27. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as
follows:
Following an article published on 16 November 2019 headlined
"Domestic abuse victim fled country after ex granted access to kids” a man
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the newspaper
had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice. IPSO upheld
this complaint and has required the express.co.uk to publish this decision as a
remedy to the breach.
The article reported on the experiences of an unnamed woman
who “was forced to flee Britain with her […] children after fearing they would
be abducted by their abusive” father. It reported that the woman “had half an
hour to pack and head to the airport for a new home in Cyprus” even though “she
had sole custody of the children… as she feared her ex would ignore visiting
rights rules”. The article described the former partner as abusive and said the
woman had suffered “years of abuse”. The article contained a quote from the
woman who said “there were thre[e] times when he was physically violent and he
was also verbally abusive. He made death threats towards me.” The article said
the mother had “concerns her youngsters could be snatched from school”.
The complainant said that he was the ex-partner of one the
women featured in the article, and was complaining on his and his children’s
behalf. He said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said
that it was inaccurate to state that he had been abusive to his former partner.
The complainant said he had full custody of the children from the day after the
mother fled, and her custody had been removed several months previously, and
therefore it was inaccurate to report that the mother had custody, or that he
would ignore visiting rights. He also said that the family court had ruled that
there was no risk of him trying to abduct the children, as reported. The publication did not comment on whether
the complainant was the ex-partner of the woman featured in the article because
it said to do so would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
IPSO made clear that domestic abuse is an important and
sensitive issue of significant public interest. The press plays a critical role
in highlighting the issue, however, when doing so the press has a responsibility
to report in a responsible and accurate way, and to balance the rights of all
individuals involved. IPSO was not making a finding on the accuracy of the
allegations, but whether there had been a breach of the Editors’ Code.
IPSO found that the article had stated as fact that the
ex-partner of the woman featured in the article had abused her, and that he had
been considered a risk of ignoring visiting rights and abducting his children,
which the publication was not in a position to demonstrate as true. The
publication said it had verified all the claims in the article and had set out
the steps it had taken, but it could not share its research materials without
compromising its confidential sources.
IPSO found that where the publication had failed to
distinguish clearly between comment and fact there was a breach of Clause
1(iv).
Date complaint received: 05/07/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 08/08/2022
Back to ruling listing