Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 11855-21 A woman and two men v
thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. A
woman and two men complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
that thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or
shock) and Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article published in November 2021.
2. This
decision is written in general terms, to avoid the inclusion of information
which could identify an alleged victim of sexual assault. The complainants were
the man who was the victim of an alleged sexual assault, and two of his family
members.
3. The
article, which appeared online only, reported that two men had entered not
guilty pleas in relation to charges arising from an alleged sexual assault and
other crimes. The article set out the specific charges, and reported that one
of the charges was a sexual assault involving the use of a specific named
object. The article also named the two men accused of the crime, and gave their
ages and addresses. Finally, the article referred to a co-defendant in the case,
who was a teenager and could not be named due to his age.
4. The
complainants said that the article breached Clause 4, as they considered it
included gratuitous detail about the attack which was insensitive – namely, the
specific object which was used during the alleged assault. They said that,
while this information was heard in court, they did not see why it was
necessary to include it in the news report; they believed that, in doing so,
the publication had sensationalised a traumatic incident and had not taken into
account the mental health and wellbeing of the victim and witness. They also
expressed concern that the article had not made clear that the case was ongoing
and under investigation.
5. The
complainants also said that the article breached Clause 11, as they did not
consider the newspaper had been sufficiently vigilant in protecting the
identity of the victim. They said that, while the publication had not published
the name of the victim, it would have been aware that the case was widely known
in the local community and had been a source of gossip and speculation. While
the complainants noted that the victim had been previously identified in social
media posts circulated amongst the community, they said that the article led to
increased scrutiny for him, noting that given the “amount of gossip going
around town” the publication should have realised that “many, many people knew
who had been assaulted”. They also said that, by naming the defendants in the
case, the link between them and the victim could be established, and therefore
the victim could possibly have been identified – though they did not say that
anyone had identified him as a result of the article’s publication.
6. The
complainants finally expressed concerns, framed under Clause 4 and Clause 11,
that the comment function had been left open on the article and on social
media. They considered that allowing readers’ comments promoted a culture in
which victim blaming was encouraged and, as the comments were not moderated in
a timely manner, was reckless and detrimental to the wellbeing of those
involved in the assault. The comment function was removed before the
complainants were able to provide the specific comments which caused them
concern to IPSO.
7. The
publication, while it apologised for any upset caused by the article, said it
did not consider that it breached the Editors’ Code. It said that it had taken
care to sensitively cover a complex case and taken its responsibility to not
identify a victim of sexual assault seriously. It also said that – other than
reporting that the victim was a man – it had included no other details about
him in the article. It then noted that the specific object used during the
alleged assault had formed part of the charges and had been heard in court and
that, taking into account its duty to fairly and accurately report on legal
proceedings, it had included this detail. It further noted that, in its view,
it was in the public interest to refer to the specific object to correct assumptions
widely circulating in the public domain, which it said alluded to a more
serious allegation. It also provided a copy of the indictment, which included a
reference to the object, to support its position on this point.
8. The
publication also noted that an editor had reviewed the story prior to
publication, to ensure that extra care was taken not to publish identifying
details about the victim.
9. The
publication accepted that comments should not have been allowed on the article
and accepted full responsibility for the oversight. It said that two comments
which appeared on the article had been reported to it, and it had removed these
– and had later turned off the commenting facility altogether. It then said
that it would remind all those working for the newspaper to ensure comments
were turned off for live cases such as the one which the article reported on
and offered its assurances that the case would be approached with sensitivity
moving forward.
10. The
publication proposed to resolve the complaint, by adding the following footnote
to the article:
An
earlier version of this article in error had the comments section enabled. The
Westmorland Gazette would like to apologise for any concern this caused.
Relevant
Code Provisions
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
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.
Findings
of the Committee
11. The
Committee understood that the article under complaint had caused a great deal
of stress and upset to the complainants during a difficult period in their
lives. However, its role was to make a finding as to whether the specific
clauses of the Editors’ Code had been breached, and in doing so it would have
to a reach a decision, under Clause 4, as to whether the article had reported
on the case sensitively. The Committee was mindful that, in considering the
complaint, it would have to consider factors beyond the impact the article had
on the complainants, such as the right of the press to report on legal
proceedings.
12. The
publication had provided an indictment which clearly showed that the specific
object used during the alleged assault was included in one of the charges. In
the context of a court report covering a plea hearing, and where the terms of
Clause 4 make clear that publications should not be restricted from reporting
on legal proceedings, the Committee did not consider that including the
specific object represented insensitive reporting in breach of Clause 4. It
considered this to be the case having balanced the clear distress experienced
by the complainants with the need for newspapers to be able to accurately
report on legal proceedings, including the charges faced by the defendants,
noting that the newspaper had not gone beyond what had been heard in court in
this regard. There was therefore no breach of Clause 4 on this point.
13. The
Committee understood that the complainants were concerned about the increased
scrutiny following the publication of the article and had expressed concerns
that – by including the names of the defendants – the article included
information which had the potential to identify the victim. The Committee noted
first that the complainants had not said that anyone had identified the victim
due to the article, and that they had said that the identity of the victim was
widely known amongst the local community prior to the article’s publication,
due to other material widely shared on social media. It also noted that the
article itself contained only one piece of information about the victim – his
gender – and did not include other information, such as details about the
circumstances of the allegations against the defendants, that were likely to
identify him. The Committee did not consider that the article included
information which identified or was likely to lead to the identification of the
victim, and there was no breach of Clause 11.
14. The
complainants had also expressed concerns that the commenting function had been
left on the article and social media posts. The Committee noted that Clause 4
and Clause 11 do not, in and of themselves, restrict the right of publications
to allow comment facilities on articles which relate to cases of grief or shock
or sexual offences, or require that such comments are pre-moderated
15. IPSO
can consider complaints about specific comments if they have been subject to
editorial control by the publication, either through pre-moderation or through
a decision to continue publishing once they have been flagged. In this
instance, two comments which had been reported to the publication had been
removed immediately when reported, and therefore they fell outside of IPSO’s remit.
16.
Nevertheless, the Committee welcomed the publication’s decision to turn off the
commenting function altogether after it was notified of the concerns about the
two comments, and its proposal to publish a footnote apologising for the
comments being allowed. It noted that this incident illustrated the need for
care to be taken over the use of commenting facilities on such sensitive
stories.
17.
While the Committee understood that the complainants were concerned that the
article did not make clear that an investigation into the incident was ongoing,
it noted that the article made clear that the court case which it reported on
was ongoing, and therefore there was no breach of the Code on this point.
Conclusion(s)
18. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
19. N/A
Date
complaint received: 31/03/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/05/2022
Back to ruling listing