Resolution
Statement – 12200-21 Moulds v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. Sarah
Moulds complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail
Online breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “EXCLUSIVE: Shamed huntswoman filmed kicking and slapping
horse is SUSPENDED from her primary school job and axed from Pony Club role as
RSPCA leaves card at her front door telling her to 'get in touch' - as she goes
into hiding after 'death threats'”, published on 9 November 2021.
2. The
article reported on threats received by the complainant after a video of her
went viral. It stated that the complainant had to “[go] into hiding” after
receiving “death threats”. The article did not name the village in which the
complainant lived, but stated her home was within a mile circumference of a
certain landmark, that it was located in an upmarket Leicestershire village and
included details about the property, including an image of its exterior.
3. The
complainant said that the article intruded into her privacy in breach of Clause
2. She said that the information and photograph within the article were
sufficient to reveal the location of her home to readers. She said that that
given the nature of the threats she had received – which the publication was
aware of, given they were referred to in the article – the publication of this
information was a threat to her security. The complainant noted that she had
already received death threats on social media and that, after the publication
of the article, further threats had been delivered to her home.
4. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said firstly that the
information included within the article was limited and could not identify the
complainant’s address. It also provided information which demonstrated that the
complainant’s full address was already within the public domain.
Relevant
Code 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.
Mediated
Outcome
5. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
6. During
IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to delete the images of the
complainant’s home from the article.
7. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.
8. As
the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make
a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 01/12/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/03/2022
Back to ruling listing