Resolution statement 13811-17 Kerr v Daily Record

Resolution Statement 13811-17 Kerr v Daily Record

Summary of complaint

1. Sharon Kerr complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Record breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Cement fetishist slashed in flat torture ordeal”, published on 9 February 2017.

2. The article was a report of a court case in which a defendant had the same name as the complainant, and the article also included a picture of the complainant.

3. The complainant said that she had been misidentified. She said that she was not involved in the incident, that she had not faced any court proceedings in relation to it, and that her photograph had been published in error.

4. The newspaper apologised for the distress caused to the complainant and said that the photograph had been taken from her Facebook profile in error. The newspaper said that it had checked with the reporter, who was present during the court proceedings, that this was the correct individual. It said that the reporter had made a genuine mistake in confirming the individual’s identity however after receiving the complaint, it deleted the image from its records and marked their cuttings library with a warning.

Relevant Code Provisions

5. 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.

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. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.

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

6. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

7. Following IPSO’s intervention the matter was settled privately between the parties.

8. As the complaint was successfully resolved, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 09/02/2017
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/08/2017