Decision of the
Complaints Committee – 11954-22 Lord v Rochdale Observer
Summary of Complaint
1. Craig Lord complained to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Rochdale Observer breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy),
Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), and Clause 5 (Reporting suicide) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ex-cop died of injuries
from suicide bid 23 years before / Former police officer died from injuries he
sustained in suicide bid 23 years before”, published on 15 October
2022.
2. The
article, which appeared on the front-page of the newspaper and continued on to
page 4, reported on the death of the complainant’s brother and the subsequent
inquest. It reported that the complainant’s brother “died from the injuries he
sustained from a suicide attempt more than 20 years ago, an inquest heard”. The
article reported that the complainant’s brother “had been cared for by his
parents, [parents’ names], following the attempted suicide”. It stated that:
“In February 1999, [the complainant] was called to [his brother’s] house in
Todmorden to help [his brother] reinforce his front door. In a witness
statement read at the inquest […the complainant] said that he arrived to find
his brother in an ambulance which had been called by neighbours after he had
tried to end his life by hanging”. The article also said the complainant’s
brother had been “taken by ambulance to A&E at Birch Hill hospital”. The
article continued by stating that the complainant, in his inquest witness
statement, had said: “’He loved his job as a police officer and was studying
for a law degree’”.
3. The complainant said that the
article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as he had not “arrived to find his
brother in an ambulance”. He said he had not attended his brother’s house on
the day of his accident, but instead had seen him in the hospital. He also said
the article was inaccurate because Birch Hill hospital did not have an A&E
department, so his brother could not have been taken there in an ambulance as
reported by the article. The complainant said the article was further
inaccurate because his brother had already passed his law degree, and so was no
longer “studying” for it. The complainant said he had spoken to the coroner who
had told him that the statements were not the actual statements and that
newspapers do not always print verbatim wording.
4. The complainant said the article
also breached Clause 2 because it intruded into the family’s privacy by naming
him and his mother. The complainant said the article also breached Clause 4
because the needs of the family had not been considered before the article was
published on the front page of the newspaper. He asserted that publication of
the article had not been handled sensitively and that his mother had not been
approached prior to publication. The complainant said the article also breached
Clause 5 because he was concerned of the impact it could have on a family
member.
5. The publication did not accept a
breach of Clause 1. It provided the notes taken by the court reporter, and said
these clearly included a reference to the ambulance and an A&E department
at Birch Hill Hospital. The notes also said that the complainant’s brother was
“studying for a law degree”. Regarding the complainant’s disagreement that this
had been at his brother’s house, as reported by the article – the publication
said it had contacted the Coroner’s Office after publication. The coroner
provided a letter which stated that the inquest had not included any oral
evidence given by witnesses – instead written statements were read out by the
court. The letter said that a statement from the complainant and his mother
included information that the complainant had attended his brother’s home and
seen him being attended to in the back of the ambulance. In addition, it said
another statement from the Registered Manager at the complainant’s brother’s
home had stated he was “[s]urrounded by family” at the time of his death.
Therefore, it said its reporting on this point was accurate. The publication
also said that it did not consider that these alleged inaccuracies were
significant so as to require correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
6. The publication also did not accept
a breach of Clause 2. It said that journalists are entitled to report on
inquests and what is heard during court proceedings. It also said that Clause 4
and Clause 5 were not engaged.
Relevant Clause
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 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 5 (Reporting suicide)*
When reporting suicide, to prevent
simulative acts care should be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method
used, while taking into account the media's right to report legal proceedings.
Findings of the
Committee
7. The Committee first expressed its
sympathy towards the complainant and his family for their loss.
8. The complainant disputed what had
taken place in February 1999; namely that he had attended his brother’s address
and had seen him in the ambulance. The publication provided the court
reporter’s notes which accurately reflected what had been reported in the
article on these points. In addition, a letter from the coroner confirmed that
statements had been read out in court during the inquest which referred to the
complainant having attended his brother home and seen him in the ambulance.
Whilst the complainant disputed that the article accurately described the
events of that day, newspapers are responsible for accurately reporting what is
heard in court; not the accuracy of what is heard by the court. Where both the
reporter’s notes and coroner had confirmed that this had been heard in court
there was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
9. The complainant also said it was
inaccurate to report that Birch Hill hospital had an A&E department and
that his brother had been “studying for a law degree”. The reporter’s notes
stated he had been “studying for a law degree” and had been “taken to A&E”.
In addition, the Committee considered that, where it was not in dispute that
the complainant had attended a department of Birch Hill hospital and that he
had been studying for a law degree, even if he had then passed it, these would
not be significant inaccuracies requiring correction. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on these points.
10. Regarding the complaint under
Clause 2. Newspapers are entitled to report on court and inquest proceedings in
line with the principle of open justice. Whilst the Committee acknowledged that
the publication of his name had caused him concern, this information had
already been made public as part of the inquest proceedings. Furthermore, there
is not usually a reasonable expectation of privacy over this information. There
was no breach of Clause 2.
11. Similarly, Clause 4 makes clear
that its provisions do not impact the right of newspapers to report on inquest
proceedings; it just requires that the reporting of such matters are handled
sensitively. The Committee considered that there were no excessive or
gratuitous details, and that the article was simply a report of what had been
heard at the inquest. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 4.
12. The Committee then considered the
complaint under Clause 5. Clause 5 states that excessive detail should not be
used in the reporting of suicide in order to prevent simulative acts of
suicide. The complainant’s concern under this Clause was his fear of the
potential emotional impact on a family member and, as such, did not engage the
terms of the Clause.
Conclusions
13. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial action required
14. N/A
Date complaint received: 16/10/2023
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/02/2023