Decision of the Complaints Committee 12347-15 Perrett v Belfast Telegraph
Summary of complaint
1. Maria Perrett complained to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Belfast Telegraph breached
Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) in an
article headlined “Neighbour ‘stabbed woman 33 times’”, 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 the
complainant had been mentioned repeatedly in court. In particular, the court
had heard that “attempts by the local authority and by the police to broker
better relations between the neighbours were rebuffed by Trevor Gibbon and
Maria Perrett”. The newspaper said that it was satisfied that it had not
breached the Editors’ Code, and that it would not be appropriate to remove the
complainant’s name from the article.
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 persons convicted or accused 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.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 14/12/2015
Date decision issued: 29/04/2016