Decision of the Complaints Committee – 12001-20 A man v
Thurrock.nub.news
Summary of Complaint
1. A man complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that Thurrock.nub.news breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2
(Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Concern
grows following adverse impact of refugees in borough - amid residents' fears
that more will be coming”, published on 11 April 2020.
2. The article reported on an estate which was being used to
house refugees. The article reported various comments expressed by area
residents including that “some of [the refugees] have been pictured gathering
in numbers and smoking from hookahs, with strong smells of cannabis floating
across the area”. The article also included an image of two men, sitting
outside smoking from a shisha pipe, which was captioned “The refugees have been
pictured by their neighbours who complain the smell of drugs is drifting
towards their homes”.
3. The complainant, one of the men pictured, said that the
article was a breach of his right to privacy under Clause 2. He said that the
image showed him in the back garden of his home, where he had a reasonable
expectation of privacy, and had been taken and published without his knowledge
or consent. He noted that his back garden was private and could not be viewed
from a public space as it was surrounded by high fences. The only way the image
could have been taken was from inside one of his neighbours’ houses. He said
that the image showed him smoking shisha, which he considered to be a private
activity, in particular because of his background and culture. He noted that
the image clearly identified him, and that people had recognised him from the
image. The complainant provided images of his back garden to IPSO, which he
said demonstrated that he had been in the back garden at the time the
photograph had been taken. He also
provided some selfies which he said had been taken on the same day in the back
garden, which showed the two men sitting in the same position and wearing the
same clothing as appeared in the published image.
4. The complainant said further that the publication of the
photograph in the context of the article had revealed his refugee status, which
was private information. The publication
of the photograph which identified him as a refugee, together with the name of
the street on which he was living, put him at risk from those he was seeking
refuge from.
5. The complainant also said that the article was in breach
of Clause 1. He said that it was misleading to show a picture of him smoking
tobacco from a shisha pipe, a legal substance, in conjunction with the caption
“The refugees have been pictured by their neighbours who complain the smell of
drugs is drifting towards their homes”. He said the term “drug” gave the
misleading impression that he was smoking an illegal substance, particularly
when the caption was read in combination with the sentence in the article which
claimed that refugees had been “pictured… smoking from hookahs, with strong
smells of cannabis floating across the area”.
6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
did not accept that the image showed the complainant in his back garden. It
supplied IPSO with images of the front gardens of several of the houses on the
estate, which it said looked similar to the background of the image in the
article. It also said that the image had been circulated on social media on
three Facebook groups for the town, and others for the Borough of Thurrock,
although it was unable to provide evidence of this or to give an estimate of
how many people had seen the image. Initially the publication said that it had
asked the poster of the image on Facebook whether it could publish it, and
later said that the image had been sent directly to the newspaper by a
disgruntled member of the public. It said that it had decided not to anonymise
the image as it believed the image had been taken in a public place and had
been published elsewhere.
7. The publication further said that the complainant’s
refugee status was not private, as the people who lived locally would recognise
him as a refugee due to his presence in the area.
8. Whilst maintaining that publication of the image or
revealing that the complainant was a refugee was not a breach of Clause 2, the
publication argued that, in any event, there was a public interest in
publication as it contributed to the debate regarding the refugees living on
the estate. Including the complainant’s likeness, which had been published
previously elsewhere, added reality to the story. The publication said the
story was in the public interest as there had been serious impropriety on the
estate in the form of anti-social behaviour. It also said the use of illegal
drugs on the estate in general, although it did not suggest the complainant had
used illegal drugs, was a matter of public health and safety. It said that it
was right and proper for the public to be made aware of the refugees’ situation
and their actions on the estate.
9. Although the publication did not accept that that the publication
of the image had intruded into the complainant’s private life, during direct
correspondent with the complainant, prior to IPSO’s investigation, it anonymised
the image.
10. The publication said it was not inaccurate in breach of
Clause 1 to call shisha “a drug” because the term “drug” is subjective and
shisha was bad for health and habit forming. It noted that tobacco was listed
as a drug on the UK government’s anti-drug campaigning website. It said that it
had not directly suggested that the complainant had smoked cannabis, although
it accepted that some readers may have understood this to be the case.
11. Whilst the publication did not accept that the Code had
been breached, prior to IPSO’s investigation it offered to publish a further story
with input from the complainant and an apology. During IPSO’s investigation it
offered to publish the following statement:
A recent story published by Thurrock Nub News on 11 April
this year reflected the concerns of residents in Chadwell St Mary about
anti-social activity that was taking place at premises on the new Oak Road
estate leased by the Home Office to house refugees. As part of that report we
published a picture, widely circulated at the time on social media, of two
residents on the estate smoking a hookah. Our story reported that there has
been drug use at houses on Oak Road, particularly the smoking of cannabis. We
are assured by the men pictured in the image that the substance they were
smoking is not a drug and they were partaking in legitimate activity in an area
they regarded as private. Thurrock Nub News accepts that this article has
caused personal distress to one of the men pictured, for which we apologise and
we are happy to publish his statement that he was only smoking shisha and the
statement: "I never used drugs in all my life".
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 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.
*The Public Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they
can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression
itself.
3. The regulator will consider the extent to which material
is already in the public domain or will become so.
4. Editors invoking the public interest will need to
demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication - or journalistic
activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve, and be
proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that
decision at the time.
Findings of the Committee
12. Clause 2 states that everyone is entitled to respect for
their private life, home and health and that it is unacceptable to photograph
individuals without their consent, where they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy. There was a dispute between the parties as to the complainant’s
location at the time he was photographed.
The complainant had provided a number of photographs to the Committee to
support his position that he had been sitting in the back garden of his home.
The publication had also provided a number of photographs of the front gardens
of the houses on the estate in which the complainant lived. Having considered
the evidence, the Committee considered that it was more likely than not that
the complainant had been in the back garden of his home at the time the
photograph had been taken. The back
garden was a private space which could not be seen from a public place and the
complainant had been enjoying his private life with a friend at the time the
photograph was taken. Further, the complainant had not consented to his
photograph being taken or published. The complainant had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in these circumstances and the publication of the
photograph was intrusive. While the
publication had said the image had previously been published on social media,
it had been unable to demonstrate that the image had been established in the
public domain to an extent that the complainant no longer had a reasonable
expectation of privacy. The publication of the photograph intruded into the complainant’s
private life in breach of Clause 2.
13. The caption of the photograph revealed the complainant’s
refugee status without his consent. In general, an individual’s immigration
status is personal, sensitive information which relates to the individual’s
private and family life. The Committee rejected the publication’s argument that
the complainant did not retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation
to this information because his refugee status would be known locally due to
the location of his home. The publication had revealed this information to a
far larger number of people as compared to the number who otherwise had
knowledge of the complainant’s status based on his housing arrangements.
Publishing this information in these circumstances, without the complainant’s
consent, constituted an unjustified intrusion into his private life.
14. The publication had also argued that the use of the
image, and the revelation of the complainant’s refugee status, was in the
public interest, negating any breach of Clause 2. Whilst the Committee accepted
that the article itself contributed to a debate on a matter of public interest,
it noted that the image of the complainant, and the revelation of his refugee
status in itself did not add to the public debate. The publication had also
said that the use of the image could be justified as it helped protect public
health and safety, which was threatened by the use of illegal drugs on the
estate. However, the publication had not argued that the complainant was
pictured using illegal drugs and there was no public interest in publishing the
image on this ground. The publication of the photograph and the complainant’s
immigration status did not fall within the public interest exception of the
Code.
15. The image used in the article featured the complainant
smoking a hookah or shisha pipe, beneath which was the caption “The refugees
have been pictured by their neighbours who complain the smell of drugs is
drifting towards their homes”, and the article then went on to refer to smells
of cannabis. The complainant said that this suggested wrongly that he was
smoking cannabis. While the Committee acknowledged the publication’s argument
that shisha is a “drug” in a general sense, where the article had referred to
complaints about smells of cannabis (and had not referred to shisha or any
other legal drugs), the caption’s reference to the “smell of drugs... drifting
towards ... homes” suggested that the photograph showed the activity referenced
in the article: cannabis use. The publication acknowledged that it had no
evidence which suggested that the complainant was smoking cannabis, or any
other illegal drug. There was a breach of Clause 1(i).
16. The misleading impression given by the article that the
complainant was pictured smoking cannabis was significant as it suggested that
he had engaged in illegal activity, which was not the case. It required
correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The publication had offered to
publish a correction, but the proposed wording simply put the complainant’s
position on record. The wording did not
identify the misleading information that was being corrected, namely that the
complainant had not been smoking illegal drugs in the photograph. On this basis, the wording proposed by the
publication was not sufficient and there was a breach of Clause 1(ii).
Conclusions
17. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
18. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the newspaper
had breached Clause 2, in addition to Clause 1, the publication of an
adjudication was appropriate.
19. The Committee considered the placement of this
adjudication. The adjudication should be published online, with a link to it
(including the headline) being published on the top 50% of the publication’s
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, give the title of the publication and refer to the complaint’s subject
matter. The headline must be agreed with IPSO in advance. The publication
should contact IPSO to confirm the amendments it now intends to make to the
article to avoid the continued publication of material in breach of the
Editors’ Code of Practice. If the article remains online un-amended, the full
adjudication (including the headline) should appear below the headline..
20. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as
follows:
A man complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that Thurrock.nub.news breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2
(Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Concern
grows following adverse impact of refugees in borough - amid residents' fears
that more will be coming”, published on 11 April 2020.
The article reported on an estate which was being used to
house refugees. The article reported various comments expressed by area
residents including that “some of [the refugees] have been pictured gathering
in numbers and smoking from hookahs, with strong smells of cannabis floating
across the area”. The article also included an image of two men, sitting
outside smoking from a shisha pipe, which was captioned “The refugees have been
pictured by their neighbours who complain the smell of drugs is drifting
towards their homes”.
The complainant was one of the men pictured. He said that
the image showed him in the back garden of his home, where he had a reasonable
expectation of privacy, and had been taken and published without his knowledge
or consent. He noted that the image clearly identified him, and that people had
recognised him from the image. He also said that the publication of the
photograph in the context of the article had revealed his refugee status, which
was private information. The publication of the photograph which identified him
as a refugee, along with the name of the street he was living on, put him at
risk from those he was seeking refuge from. The complainant also said that the
article was inaccurate as it contained a picture of him smoking tobacco from a
shisha pipe, a legal substance, but described this as a “drug” and further
references to “cannabis” in the article suggested he had been smoking illegal
drugs. The publication did not accept that the photograph of the complainant
had been taken whilst he was in the back garden of his home, and also said that
the article did not intrude into the complainant’s private life because it was
published in the public interest as it helped protect public health and safety,
which was threatened by the use of illegal drugs on the estate. However, it
accepted both that it did not know what the complainant had been smoking in the
photograph and that the article could inaccurately imply that the complainant
was pictured smoking an illegal substance.
IPSO ruled that, in all the circumstances, the complainant
had a reasonable expectation of privacy both in relation to the photograph and
his status as a refugee, which is information which related to his private and
family life. Publishing the photograph and the information regarding his
refugee status without his consent constituted an unjustified intrusion into
his private life. IPSO did not accept that publication was in the public
interest. IPSO found that the article breached Clause 2.
The publication had not offered an adequate correction which
made clear that the complainant had not been smoking an illegal drug in the
photograph. IPSO found that the article also breached Clause 1.
Date complaint received: 20/07/2020
Date decision issued: 17/02/2021
Back to ruling listingThe Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
