Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 13135-21 Foster v Wigan Observer
Summary
of Complaint
1. Keith
Foster complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Wigan Observer breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment),
and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Vets pay tribute to Christine who was 'dedicated' to
her job”, published on 23 November 2021.
2. The
article – which appeared on page 4 of the newspaper, with a reference to the
story also appearing on the newspaper’s front page – reported that “[t]ributes
have been paid to [a woman] whose body was found at a popular Wigan beauty
spot”. It reported that the woman had earlier been “reported missing from her
home” and identified the street on which she lived, before going on to report
that she had “lived alone”.
3. The
article also included comments from the woman’s co-worker. He was reported as
having said that her colleagues “had no idea of her state of mind” and that
“there was no suggestion that she intended to harm herself”. The colleague went
on to comment that “[h]er parents […] are going to be devastated”. The article
also included a photograph of the woman; the front-page reference included a
further picture of her.
4. The
complainant was the brother of the woman who had gone missing. He said that the
publication of the article was insensitive in breach of Clause 4, and that this
was the case as the article had been published prior to the formal
identification of his sister’s body. He then said that his sister had been
found on 19 November 2021; the coroner had contacted his family to request
details to allow him to make the identification of the body on 22 November; the
article had been published on 23 November; and then the coroner confirmed with
the family on 26 November, formally, that it was his sister’s body. Therefore,
the article had been published three days before the coroner had confirmed with
the family that it was her body which had been found at the beauty spot.
5. He
also said that the publication had not acted with sympathy and discretion as
required by the Clause, as neither he nor other family members had been
contacted prior to the article’s publication and forewarned of what it would
contain.
6. The
complainant then said that the article included several inaccuracies, in breach
of Clause 1. He first said that the article included unconfirmed speculation,
including reporting that his sister’s body had been found where the identity of
the body had not been formally confirmed and reporting comments that his siter
had “intended to harm herself”.
7. The
complainant also said that the reference of his sister’s colleague to her
“parents” was inaccurate, as one of his parents had passed away. He further
said that the article, in reporting his sister’s partial address and the fact
that she lived alone, had raised security concerns. He said that there were
further inaccuracies in the article, though he did not specify what the
additional inaccuracies were.
8. The
complainant also said that the newspaper had breached Clause 2 and Clause 3,
for the same reasons noted above.
9. The
complainant had contacted the newspaper directly prior to making an IPSO
complaint, to make it aware of his concerns regarding the article. He first
phoned a journalist working for the paper, and asked how the story had come to
be published. The journalist had said that he had contacted the colleague ahead
of the story being published, but as he did not have the complainant’s contact
details – or the contact details of his family – he had not reached out to
them. He had, according to the complainant, attributed this to the volume of
work he had. The complainant said that he wished for the matter to be formally
investigated, and for there to be no further coverage of his sister’s death in
any of the publisher’s publications.
10. The
complainant’s concerns were then escalated first to an editor, and then to a
more senior member of staff. Both staff members apologised for the distress
caused, and said that should the complainant wish to work with the newspaper on
a tribute to his sister they would be “more than happy to publish that as
well.” The senior member of staff also undertook an internal investigation into
how the story came to be written – although this was not completed prior to the
complainant contacting IPSO.
11. The
publication said it did not accept that the article or the conduct of its staff
had breached the Editors’ Code. It said that the police had released two
statements to the press. The first statement, which was dated 19 November, had
a not-for-publication note indicating that police were searching for the
complainant’s sister at the beauty spot. A follow-up statement, sent the
following day, said:
Officers
searching for missing person […] have sadly located a body in the water at
[…] in Wigan at around 10.50am today (19
November). A formal identification has not yet taken place. There are not
believed to be any suspicious circumstances and a file will be passed to the
coroner.
12. The
publication said that, after the release of the second statement, it had been
widely reported by several publications – including at least one national
publication – that police searching for the complainant’s sister had found a
body, that there were not believed to be any suspicious circumstances, and that
the file had been passed to the coroner. It also provided copies of some of the
articles which also reported on this. Therefore, it said, it could not be the
case that the publication had ‘broken the news’ of the complainant’s sister’s
death or cause of death to her family, where the police had circulated the
above statement 4 days prior to the article’s publication and it had been
covered by the press.
13. The
publication then said that the police had made a public appeal to members of
the public for help in locating the complainant’s sister after she had gone
missing. There was, the publication said, a public interest in reporting on the
police’s updated statement regarding what had happened to her. It said that the
piece was intended to be a tribute piece, focussing on kind words about the
kind of person she was – it did not consider that it was an insensitive article
in how it referred to the complainant’s sister.
14.
Turning to the terms of Clause 4, the publication noted that there is no
obligation for publications to contact the relatives of deceased individuals
prior to publishing stories. It said that it was often the case that the
publication did not consider it necessary to intrude upon the grief of a family
at a difficult time and – in this case – where the publication had spoken
extensively with a colleague of the complainant’s sister who had known her for
many years, it did not consider it necessary or proportionate to contact her
family prior to publication
15. The
publication then addressed the alleged inaccuracies raised by the complainant.
It said that it was clear from statements given by the police and from their
actions – bringing the search for the complainant’s sister to an end and
passing the file to a coroner – that the body found at the beauty spot was
hers; it further noted that there had been no suggestion that this was not the
case. It then said that “[i]t is widespread and common practice for the media
to report someone's death before formal identification by the coroner if the
police are satisfied they know the identity of the deceased.” It did not,
therefore, accept that the terms of Clause 1 had been breached.
16. Turning to the complainant’s Clause 2 concerns,
the publication noted the public nature of the appeal made by the police for
information on the complainant’s sister’s whereabouts. It said that the extent
of the public nature of the appeal could be gathered from the fact that the
Facebook appeal for information – which it provided – was shared more than
4,500 times. The Facebook appeal also included the name of her street, and the
photographs included in the article were on file from a previous news story the
publication had written about her place of work. It did not, therefore,
consider that the article published private information in breach of Clause 2.
17. The
publication then said that at no point had any journalist working on its behalf
sought to contact the complainant, except to respond to the concerns he had
raised. It did not therefore consider that the terms of Clause 3 could have
possible been breached.
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 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 3
(Harassment)*
i)
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They
must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing
individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave
and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom
they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are
observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant
material from other sources.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
18. The
Committee first wished to extend its sincere condolences to the complainant for
the loss of his sister.
19. The
Committee recognised that the loss of his sister was a distressing time for the
complainant, and that the article had added to his distress. However, the
Committee noted that the terms of Clause 4 do not forbid all reporting of
events which may involve personal grief or shock, although publication must be
handled sensitively.
20. In
this instance, while the Committee understood that the coroner had not formally
confirmed the identification of the complainant’s sister with her family at the
time of the article’s publication, it noted that this was not a case of the
newspaper breaking the news of a loved one’s death to the family. The police
had sent a statement to the newspaper three days prior to the article’s
publication, confirming that the search for her had been called off and a file
passed to the coroner after a body had been found at a local beauty spot; other
newspapers had reported on this development, and had linked the discovery of
the body with her death. In addition, the coroner had contacted the
complainant’s family one day before the article’s publication to request
documents which would allow him to make the formal identification. Therefore,
while the formal identification had not been made, the publication had had a
reasonable basis for considering that they would not be breaking the news of
the death to the family, and that the police had made her family aware. In such
circumstances, the timing of the article did not constitute insensitive
publication under the terms of Clause 4, and there was no breach of the Clause
on this point.
21. The
complainant had also expressed concerns that the publication had not contacted
him or his family prior to the article’s publication. The Committee understood
the complainant’s concerns on this point, but noted that the terms of Clause 4
include no requirement for publications to contact the relatives of deceased
individuals prior to writing articles about deaths in the community. In the
written correspondence the publication had had with the complainant after the
publication of the article, it had responded with sympathy and discretion,
apologised for any distress caused by the publication of the article, and had
escalated the complainant’s concerns in line with his wishes. There was,
therefore, no breach of Clause 4 in relation to the publication’s contact with
the complainant.
22.
Turning to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 1, the Committee understood
that the complainant had concerns that the newspaper may have published
inaccurate information in reporting that the complainant’s sister had been
found before her identity had been formally confirmed. However – where it was
the case that the body which had been found was the complainant’s sister, and
the basis for this claim was a police statement stating that the search for her
had been called off after a body had been found – the Committee considered that
the newspaper had taken care over the accuracy of this claim, and that it was
not significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted.
23. The
complainant had also said that the article was in breach of Clause 1 as it
included speculation on the part of a colleague about his sister’s state of
mind and cause of death, as well as including a reference to their “parents” as
opposed to parent. While the Committee understood that this portion of the
article caused the complainant distress, the newspaper was entitled to publish
the colleague’s thoughts, recollections, and tribute, provided it was correctly
distinguished as his thoughts and speculation, as opposed to claims of fact. In
this case, where the comments were clearly attributed to the colleague via the
use of quote marks and were not adopted by the publication as fact, there was
no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
24. The
Committee noted that the complainant had expressed concerns over the security
of his sister’s property, as the article had included his sister’s partial
address and the fact that she lived alone. However, the terms of Clause 1
relate to the publication of inaccurate, misleading, and distorted information,
rather than general concerns about security. In addition, while the complainant
had expressed concerns that there were further inaccuracies in the article, the
Committee was not able to make a finding on these alleged inaccuracies in
circumstances where the nature and extent of the inaccuracies had not been set
out. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
25.
While the Committee noted that seeing his sister’s death reported in the
newspaper had caused him distress and he considered that the reporting had
breached Clause 2, it noted that the fact of a death is not private
information. The fact that his sister had gone missing and that a body had
subsequently been found during the search for her had been widely reported by
several news outlets, including a national newspaper, and a public statement
had been released by the police. There was no breach of Clause 2.
26. The
publication had not contacted the complainant directly, except to respond to
the concerns which he flagged directly with them, requesting a response. Where
the publication had not sought to contact the complainant directly at any
point, there was no breach of Clause 3.
Conclusion(s)
27. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
28. N/A
Date
complaint received: 15/12/21
Date
decision issued: 09/03/2022