Decision of the Complaints Committee – 11471-20 Hale v
dailyrecord.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Craig Hale complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3
(Harassment) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) in two articles headlined:
2 .Both articles reported that the complainant’s partner, a
“Notorious stalker”, “has set up a business selling football merchandise from a
market stall in Airdrie”. Both articles made reference to the original criminal
conviction of the complainant’s partner and contained a picture of her and the
complainant. These identical images were captioned in both articles,
respectively, “Stalker [the complainant’s partner] celebrates her release from
prison with partner Craig Hale” and “[the complainant’s partner] posted the
photos of her drinking champagne after she was released early from her one-year
sentence”.
3. The complainant said the articles breached Clause 2 as
they published his name, an image of him taken from his partner’s public social
media account and the fact of his relationship. He also said that the
publication breached Clause 2 by associating him with someone accused and
convicted of crime, namely his partner; something he also said gave rise to a
breach of Clause 9. He confirmed that he had attended two of his partner’s
court appearances; posted publicly about an IPSO ruling of May 2020 which
related to the criminal accusations against her; addressed the case against his
partner on Twitter after this; and, was pictured in public social media posts
by his partner which celebrated her release from prison and that showed the
pair as a couple. Finally, the complainant said that the publication of the articles
constituted harassment.
4. The publication did not accept it had breached the Code.
On Clause 9, it said that he was genuinely relevant to the story. It also noted
that the complainant appeared in court during his partner’s trial, to support
her, and posted publicly on Twitter about the case, identifying himself in
relation to it. It also said such activity effectively meant he had consented
to being identified in relation to the accusations against his partner. In
relation to Clause 2, it stated that the fact of a relationship is not private
information and that, in any event, a number of public social media posts
showed the pair as a couple. It pointed to the fact that it was accepted that
the photograph was taken from a public social media page and only displayed the
complainant’s likeness. As the complainants concerns under Clause 3 did not
relate to the conduct of journalists, the publication said the Clause was not
engaged.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
Findings of the Committee
8. The first stage of any decision under Clause 9 is to
assess whether the complainant was identified as the friend or relative of
someone accused or convicted of crime. The first article referred to the
complainant as a “partner” of a person convicted of crime. The second article
did not mention him by name or mention his association to his partner; but
contained a photo of the pair which clearly implied a close relationship
between the two. The complainant was identified as the friend or relative of
someone accused or convicted of crime in relation to both articles.
9. The Committee then assessed whether the complainant was
genuinely relevant to the story within the meaning of Clause 9. These articles
reported on the criminal proceedings against the complainant’s partner, her
conviction and her subsequent release from jail. The complainant confirmed that
he had attended court twice to support his partner during the same criminal
proceedings. He had also been pictured in a photo in public social media posts
by his partner which celebrated her release from prison. In this context, he
was genuinely relevant to the story in both cases. There was no breach of
Clause 9.
10. The Committee next considered whether the complainant’s
name and the fact of his relationship was private. Neither a person’s name nor
the fact of a relationship is generally information about which a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy. The Committee also noted the number of
public social media posts which showed the pair as a couple and the fact the
complainant had attended court to support his partner. There was no breach of
Clause 2.
11. The complainant had argued that associating him with
someone accused and convicted of crime, namely his partner, gave rise to a
breach of Clause 2. Clause 9 was the correct Clause under which to consider
this concern and the Committee had done so fully. The association between the
complainant and his partner, in circumstances where she was accused or
convicted of crime, did not give rise to any additional issue under Clause 2;
especially as the fact of the couple’s relationship was not private. There was
no breach of Clause 2.
12. The image of the complainant shown in both articles was
taken from his partner’s public social media page and only showed his likeness.
As such, the complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over
this information. There was no breach of Clause 2.
13. The complainant had said that the publication of the
articles constituted harassment. Clause 3 generally relates to the way
journalists behave when researching a news story and is meant to protect people
from being repeatedly approached by the press against their wishes. In
addition, there were only two articles under complaint; they had focused
predominantly on the complainant’s partner; and the complainant was in any
event relevant to these stories. There was no breach of Clause 3.
Conclusions
14. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
15. N/A
Date complaint received: 03/07/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/02/2021
Back to ruling listing