Decision of the Complaints Committee – 11886-22 A woman v lep.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. A
woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that lep.co.uk
breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article published in October 2022.
2. The
article – which appeared online only – was a court round up of individuals who
had been “convicted of crimes by local magistrates” at Preston Magistrates
Court. The name of the complainant’s child was included in the article as an
accomplice to another individual’s crime.
3. The
complainant said that the article breached Clause 6, as it had identified her
son – a child aged 15 at the time of the article’s publication – as an
accomplice in a formal criminal charge made against an individual. The
complainant said that court reporting restrictions had been in place banning
publication of her son’s name. She said this had caused significant distress to
her son and her wider family, and that identifying him would mean that his
peers would be aware of his crime; this, she said, could lead to further social
isolation and harassment.
4. The
complainant also said the article had breached Clause 2, as she considered that
the article had intruded into her son’s private life and had breached both his
and his family’s human rights.
5. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2 or Clause 6. It said it had not
been aware of the child’s age at the time of publication, and that the court
register which had listed the child’s name as an accomplice did not refer to
any reporting restrictions in place. Therefore, it said it did not accept a
breach of Clause 2 as the material was already in the public domain as it was
heard in court.
6. The
article was published at 12.30pm on a Saturday. The publication initially
stated that the article was published during a weekday “at around 12.30”, and
the reference to the complainant’s son was removed a few hours after, following
a phone call from the complainant’s representative. The publication’s initial
position was that the impact on the child was limited by its publication having
occurred during school hours. At a later point during IPSO’s investigation the
publication accepted that the reference to the complainant’s son was removed on
the Monday following the article’s publication over the weekend, after the
complainant had telephoned to raise concerns.
7. The
publication said that there had been no journalist present at court and
accepted that there had been reporting restrictions in place. However, it said
that these reporting restrictions had not been recorded on any official court
documents due to human error by court officials. It said this error had been
confirmed by a telephone conversation the publication had had with the court.
The publication provided an email received from a court officer, which said:
“I
can confirm that a press restriction was made on [date] in respect of the youth
[named individual] and that it has been recorded on the court register for his
file. Can I please therefore ask you to remove any information from the
internet etc which may have been published in respect of him, or when reporting
in respect of his co-accused, [named individuals] - on anything which would
identify [complainant’s child], – including his name, address, any educational
establishment or any workplace he attends and any picture of him.”
8. The
publication provided the court register it had used to write the article, to
show that the listing where the complainant’s child was an accomplice did not
indicate a reporting restriction. However, on the same document on another
page, the complainant’s child’s age and press restriction was indicated in
relation to the charges against him.
The
publication acknowledged that the reporting restriction had been in place and
indicated on the court register for the complainant’s child’s alleged crime,
but said this had not been listed together with the alleged crime which the
article reported on. It also noted that the court register document was 238
pages long; the crime in relation to which the complainant’s child was
identified as an accomplice was listed on page 6. The entry relating to the
charges against the complainant’s child appeared on page 19, where the
reporting restriction was noted. The publication
said the reporter usually searched the registers by specific location, and that
the reporter did not usually search the area the complainant’s son was from,
and therefore had missed the section which made the complainant’s son’s age and
reporting restriction clear.
Relevant
Clause Provisions
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.
Findings
of the Committee
9. The
Committee recognised that the court register was a large document and that no
reporting restriction had been indicated in the entry relating to the charges
that were the subject of the article. It also noted that once the publication
had become aware of the named individual’s age, it removed the reference promptly.
However, the register had noted the complainant’s son’s age and the existence
of reporting restrictions preventing his identification, 13 pages later in the
document. While the Committee understood the publication’s position that it had
only reported on certain areas within the listed report and therefore had not
seen this detail, it had access to this information at the time of publication.
It noted that an important process of identifying the correct person when court
reporting, is including their age and street level address; obtaining this
information would have helped the publication to avoid naming a child under the
age of 18. In this case, the publication had named a minor in relation to a
crime he had been an accomplice to, and this had remained online for
approximately 2 days.
10. The
terms of Clause 2 protect the rights of individuals to a private and family
life free from unnecessary intrusion without consent. In this instance, the
complainant’s son’s name had been revealed in conjunction with a crime he had
been an accomplice to. In general, IPSO upholds the right to report matters
heard in open court, both because of the general interest in open justice and
because they have entered the public domain through the proceedings. In this
instance, however, the existence of a reporting restriction meant that the
complainant’s child had a reasonable expectation that this material – which
related to a crime he was accomplice to – would not be published to the wider
public. There was a breach of Clause 2.
11. The
terms of Clause 6 make clear that children’s time at school should not be
subject to unnecessary intrusion as a result of press coverage. While the
publication had removed the reference once it had been made aware of the
child’s age two days after initial publication, the Committee considered that
revealing the complainant’s son’s identity in relation to a crime he had been
an accomplice would have impacted his time at school. For this reason, there
was a breach of Clause 6.
Conclusions
12. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 2 and Clause 6.
Remedial
action required
13. Having
upheld the complaint under Clause 2 and Clause 6, the Committee consider the
remedial action that should be required. Given the nature of the breach, the
appropriate remedial action was the publication of an upheld adjudication.
14. The
Committee considered the placement of this adjudication. The adjudication
should be published on the newspaper’s website, with a link to the full
adjudication appearing on the top half of the 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, refer to the subject matter and be
agreed with IPSO in advance of publication. A link to the adjudication should
also be published on the article as a footnote correction with an explanation
that the article had been amended following the IPSO ruling.
15. The
terms of the adjudication for publication are as follows:
A woman
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that lep.co.uk
breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article published in October 2022.
The
complaint was upheld, and IPSO required lep.co.uk to publish this adjudication
to remedy the breach of the Code.
The
article – which appeared online only – was a court round up of individuals who
had been “convicted of crimes by local magistrates” at Preston Magistrates
Court. The name of the complainant’s child was included in the article as an
accomplice to another individual’s crime.
The
complainant said that the article breached Clause 6, as it had identified her
son – a child aged 15 at the time of the article’s publication – as an
accomplice in a formal criminal charge made against an individual. The
complainant said that court reporting restrictions had been in place banning
publication of her son’s name. She said this had caused significant distress to
her son and her wider family, and that identifying him would mean that his
peers would be aware of his crime; this, she said, could lead to further social
isolation and harassment. The complainant also said the article had breached
Clause 2, as she considered that the article had intruded into her son’s
private life.
The
publication had used a court register to compile the report and said that no
reporting restriction had been indicated in the entry relating to the charges
that were the subject of the article.
IPSO
noted that once the publication had become aware of the named individual’s age,
it removed the reference promptly. However, the register had noted the
complainant’s son’s age and the existence of reporting restrictions preventing
his identification, 13 pages later in the document.
The
terms of Clause 2 protect the rights of individuals to a private and family
life free from unnecessary intrusion without consent. The existence of a
reporting restriction meant that the complainant’s child had a reasonable
expectation that this material – which related to a crime he was accomplice to
– would not be published to the wider public. There was a breach of Clause 2.
The
terms of Clause 6 make clear that children’s time at school should not be
subject to unnecessary intrusion as a result of press coverage. The publication
had removed the reference once it had been made aware of the child’s age two
days after initial publication, however IPSO considered that revealing the
complainant’s son’s identity in relation to a crime he had been an accomplice
would have impacted his time at school. For this reason, there was a breach of
Clause 6.
Date
complaint received: 10/10/2022
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/05/2023
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The
complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process
followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints
Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request
for review.