Resolution Statement – 11741-20 A woman v
wimbledonguardian.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that wimbledonguardian.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause
2 (Privacy), and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Morden woman stalked married man and his wife for three
years after he rejected her advances”, published on 6th July 2020.
2. The article reported that the complainant had been issued
with a restraining order after she had “made [a] couple's life hell after the
husband, 41, declined her advances when she told him that she loved him”. It
stated that “The couple's ordeal began in September 2015” and at the start of
2016, the husband noticed the complainant was trying to become more involved in
his life. The article continued by reporting that the couple experienced
unwanted contact from the complainant and in 2018 that the complainant had
driven past the couple’s house on fourteen occasions. It explained that the
complainant was arrested in 2018 “and taken to a south London police station”
but following an assessment, she was sectioned, taken to hospital, and bailed
to return for interview; the article stated that “She was interviewed five
times between October and December”.
3. The complainant said that the article had been based upon
an inaccurate police press release. The complainant said that the offences to
which she had pleaded guilty had taken place across a three month period, as
opposed to a three year period as suggested by the article; that she had only
been interviewed twice, not five times; and that she had not driven past the
couple’s house on fourteen occasions and she had not done so with the intent of
stalking them as that there had been mitigating circumstances – such as the
drive being recommended by a mechanic as a way to help her car. The complainant
said that she had submitted an official complaint to the police regarding its
press release.
4. Furthermore, the complainant said the article breached
Clause 2 (Privacy) because it identified her, reporting her name and occupation
and including an image of her that had been taken as part of the investigation
by police. She stated this connected her to offences described in the article
and that this was negatively affecting her daily life. She also said the
article breached Clause 6 (Children) as it had adversely affected her children
and their time at school.
5. The publication said it did not accept a breach of the
Code. It said that the article had been based upon a press release issued by the
Metropolitan Police, with copy provided by a national new agency, and published
in good faith. It did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It said that newspapers
were entitled to report on court proceedings, with the image taken and
distributed in relation to criminal proceedings against the complainant. As
such, it did not accept that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in relation to this information. The publication also highlighted the
public interest in publishing articles regarding criminal incidents. Finally,
it did not accept a breach of Clause 6 given that the article did not make
reference to her children or her role as a parent.
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 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.
Mediated Outcome
6. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
7. During IPSO’s investigation, the complainant received the
outcome of her complaint about the police press release. This investigation
found that the press release issued had exceeded the boundaries of the evidence
of the case, with an amended version circulated. Upon receipt of this, the
newspaper immediately amended the online article to remove the points of
dispute and published the following update beneath the headline:
“This story has been updated to remove certain details
previously published by Metropolitan Police. It came after a complaint to the
police watchdog from the defendant, and a subsequent investigation. It is
understood the police have apologised to [the complainant] for the additional
details and inaccuracies now retracted.”
8. In conjunction with the complainant’s IPSO complaint, the
complainant had also submitted a successful 'right to be forgotten' request to
search engines. She said that this, combined with the retraction and published
update present on the online article, would resolve the matter to her
satisfaction.
9. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the
Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been
any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 06/07/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/05/2021
Back to ruling listing