Decision of the Complaints Committee 12346-15 Perrett v The News (Portsmouth)
Summary of complaint
1. Maria
Perrett complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
News (Portsmouth) breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 9
(Reporting of crime) in an article headlined “Former Bedhampton woman murdered
after noise dispute, old Bailey told”, published on 15 June 2015.
2. The
article was a court report of the trial of Trevor Gibbon, who was accused of
murder. He was later convicted and sentenced to 28 years in prison.
3. There
was one reference to the complainant in the article: “Gibbon and his partner,
Maria Perrett, rebuffed repeated attempts by the council and police to broker
better relations…” The complainant said that the statement was inaccurate, and
that the inclusion of her name represented a breach of Clause 3 and Clause 9;
she requested that it be removed from the article. The complainant had not been
present in court.
4. The
newspaper said that article had been based on copy supplied by a national news
agency, which had had a reporter in court. On receipt of the complaint, the
agency had confirmed that the reference complained of was an accurate report of
what was heard in court; the complainant had been mentioned repeatedly as part
of the prosecution case. The newspaper said that the complainant was genuinely
relevant to the story, and that Clause 3 was not relevant to the complaint. It
declined to remove the complainant’s name from the article, as the newspaper’s
archive should be preserved unless a serious error or legal problem presents
itself; that was not the case on this occasion.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement
or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due
prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published.
iii) The press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 3 (Privacy)
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.
Clause 9 (Reporting of crime)
i) Relatives or friends of those accused or
convicted of crime should not generally be identified without their consent,
unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
6. The
publication had a responsibility to accurately report the case as heard in open
court. The complainant had not been present during the hearing, and did not
dispute that the court had heard the phrase complained of. There was no breach
of Clause 1.
7. The
publication had confirmed that the complainant had been referred to by the
prosecution; she therefore had no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation
to the proceedings, and was genuinely relevant to the reporting of the case.
There was no breach of Clause 3 or Clause 9.
Conclusions
8. The
complaint was not upheld.
N/A
Date complaint received: 14/12/2016
Date decision issued:
29/04/2016