Decision of the Complaints Committee – 11817-20 Sharp v
mirror.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Christine Sharp complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3
(Harassment) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) in an article headlined “Serial
stalker who boasted about fictional 'wild sex life' ruined couple's lives”
published 18 July 2019.
2. The article reported on the sentencing of the
complainant’s daughter, who had been convicted of a criminal offence. It noted
that the complainant’s daughter “lives with her mum and dad in Airdrie”. The
article also included a photograph which was captioned “[the complainant's
daughter] is led away by police after being arrested in 2017". In the
photograph the complainant was visible in the background, standing and looking
out of a doorway of a house. The house was the home of the complainant, where
her daughter was living at the time of her arrest. The photograph also showed
part of a plaque on the exterior wall of the house, which included the name of
the road and the family’s name, although the name of the road was partly
obscured. The text of the article did not name the complainant.
3. The complainant said the article breached Clause 9 as the
photograph identified her as a relative of a person accused and convicted of
crime, namely her daughter. Whilst she was not named in the article or
photograph caption, the complainant considered that readers would assume her
identity as a relative given that her and her daughter were both pictured at
the entrance to the family home. The complainant also said the article breached
Clause 2 as it contained a photograph of her likeness and address plaque. The
plaque was partially obscured but showed the family name: ‘Sharp’. The
complainant said that the photograph had been taken without her knowledge and
consent whilst her daughter was being arrested. She said she had come to the
front door in order to comfort her daughter but remained within the house. She
had been distressed by the situation, the policemen searching her home and the
large crowd gathered on the street. Only later did the complainant realise
there was a photographer outside the property. The complainant said that the
publication of the article breached Clause 3 and had led to harassment from
members of the public.
4. The publication did not accept it had breached the Code.
In respect of the complaint under Clause 9, it accepted that the complainant
was not genuinely relevant to the story, but it pointed to the fact that the
complainant was not identified by name in the article. It also pointed out that
the complainant had identified herself as a relative of her daughter by sharing
her daughter’s Facebook post about a previous IPSO ruling on her own public
Facebook page in May 2020. It also said it understood that the complainant visited
the court on two occasions during her daughter’s trial and waited for her in
the court café.
5. The publication denied any breach of Clause 2. It noted
that the address plaque was obscured in the photograph. In any event, it said
that an address is not generally private information and, in this case, was
already in the public domain as the registered address of the complainant’s
daughter’s company. It stated that the photograph had first been published in
March 2019, albeit with the complainant cropped out; and first published with
the complainant visible in a print article of 17 July 2019. Further, it stated
that the delay in the complaint being made indicated that there was limited
intrusion within the meaning of Clause 2. Finally, the publication emphasised
that the complainant could have been viewed by any passer-by such as those in
the crowd which had gathered outside the property at the time of the arrest and
maintained that no private information was disclosed in the photograph as it
only revealed the complainant’s likeness. The newspaper pixilated the
complainant’s face and the address plaque upon receipt of the complaint. The
publication said that Clause 3 was not engaged, as the complainant’s concern
did not relate to approaches from journalists, which the Clause covers.
6. In response, the complainant said that she had posted
publicly on Facebook about a previous IPSO ruling relating to her daughter only
after that ruling was in the public domain, and 10 months after the article under
complaint was published. In addition, whilst she accepted that she had visited
the court café once at the time her daughter’s trial and waited for her
daughter, she said she did not enter the courtroom itself, did not arrive with
her daughter and had initially visited the court building in relation to other
business.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
10. The first consideration under Clause 9 is whether the
complainant was identified as the friend or relative of someone accused or
convicted of crime. The Committee considered that readers of the article would
have inferred that the arrest was taking place at the home of the person being
arrested due to her surname being visible on the address plaque and the
residential nature of the property. It was likely that readers would have
assumed that the complainant was also a resident at the property given that she
was not wearing outdoor clothing and was standing inside the house at the time
the photograph was taken. The Committee noted that the article reported that
the person being arrested “lives with her mum and dad in Airdrie” and thus
readers would have inferred that the complainant was likely the “mum” of the
person arrested. Whilst the complainant had not been named in the article, the
Committee concluded that the information contained in the photograph itself,
taken together with the information reported in the text of the article,
identified the complainant as a relative or friend of the individual who was
being arrested and who had later been convicted of a crime, as reported in the
article.
11. The Committee noted that the publication had accepted
that the complainant was not genuinely relevant to the story. Further, the
complainant’s public comments about an IPSO ruling relating to her daughter
were made subsequently and therefore did not provide a basis for a finding that
she was genuinely relevant to the story at the time of publication. There was a
breach of Clause 9.
12. The Committee next considered whether the photograph
related to the complainant’s private life such that its publication engaged the
terms of Clause 2. The complainant was standing inside the doorway of her home
when the photograph was taken and, in these circumstances, Clause 2 was
engaged. The Committee then turned to the question of whether the complainant
had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information
contained in the photograph. The published photograph had revealed the complainant’s
likeness, and this was information which could be seen by the members of the
public who had gathered outside the property at the time the photograph was
taken. The Committee noted that the photograph, in conjunction with the text of
the article, had identified the complainant as a relative or friend of the
subject of the article. However, a familial connection or friendship is not
generally information in respect of which an individual has a reasonable
expectation of privacy. In these circumstances, the Committee found that the
complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the
information about her which was contained in the photograph and there was no
intrusion into the complainant's private life by its publication. There was no
breach of Clause 2.
13. The complainant said that the publication of the
photograph had also breached Clause 2 by revealing her address. The Committee
noted that someone’s address is not generally private information. Moreover,
the complainant’s full address was not visible in the image as it was obscured.
There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.
14. The complainant was concerned that the article had led
to harassment from members of the public. 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. Where the
complainant did not argue that the alleged approaches were made by people
working for the newspaper, and where there was no evidence of this having
occurred, the terms of Clause 3 were not engaged.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was upheld under Clause 9.
Remedial Action Required
16. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the newspaper
had breached Clause 9, the publication of an adjudication was appropriate.
17. The complaint related to material published in an online
article. Therefore, the adjudication should also be published on the
publication’s website, with a link to the full adjudication (including the
headline) appearing in the top 50% of stories on the publication’s website for
24 hours; it should then be archived in the usual way. If the newspaper intends
to continue to publish the online article without amendment to remove the
breach identified by the Committee, the full text of the adjudication should
also be published on the article, beneath the headline. If amended to remove
the breach, a link to the adjudication should be published with the article,
explaining that it was the subject of an IPSO adjudication, and explaining the
amendments that have been made. The publication should contact IPSO to confirm
the amendments it now intends to make to the online material to avoid the
continued publication of material in breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
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. The terms of
the adjudication for publication are as follows:
Christine Sharp complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3
(Harassment) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) in an article headlined “Serial
stalker who boasted about fictional 'wild sex life' ruined couple's lives”
published 18 July 2019.
The article reported on the sentencing of the complainant’s
daughter after her conviction for a criminal offence. The article included a
photograph which was captioned “[the complainant's daughter] is led away by
police after being arrested in 2017". In the photograph the complainant
was visible in the background, standing and looking out of a doorway of a house
as the arrest was taking place.
The complainant said that the article breached Clause 9 as
she was identified as a relative of someone convicted of crime in the published
photograph in circumstances where she was not genuinely relevant to the story.
She said readers would assume her identity as a relative given that her and her
daughter were both pictured at the entrance to the family home. The publication
maintained that the complainant was not identified as the friend or relative of
someone accused or convicted of crime as she was not named in the article and
her relationship to her daughter was not explicitly mentioned.
IPSO considered that readers of the article would have
inferred that the arrest was taking place at the home of the person being
arrested and it was likely that readers would have assumed that the complainant
was also a resident at the address. It also concluded that readers would have
assumed that the complainant was likely to be a relative on the person being
arrested, given that the article noted that the person being arrested “lives
with her mum and dad in Airdrie”. Whilst the complainant had not been named in
the article, the Committee concluded that the information contained in the
photograph itself, taken together with the information reported in the text of
the article, identified the complainant as a relative or friend of the
individual who was being arrested and who had later been convicted of a crime,
as reported in the article.
Where there was no basis for a finding that the complainant
was genuinely relevant to the story at the time of publication, there was a
breach of Clause 9.
Date complaint received: 03/07/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/03/2021
Back to ruling listing