Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 15070-23 Djanogly and Silk v The Daily Telegraph
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Jonathan Djanogly MP and Rebecca Silk complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Tory MP’s housekeeper
was treated ‘worse than slave’”, published on 6 February 2023.
2. The
article reported on the experience of a housekeeper who had worked at
properties owned by the complainants, who are husband and wife. The article
reported that “a former housekeeper to a senior Tory MP has claimed that she
was treated ‘worse than a slave’ after taking his wife to court for unpaid
wages.” It said the housekeeper had told another publication that “she ‘worked
like a dog’ and sometimes had to fulfil 16-hour days to complete all the tasks
she was set.” The article also reported that the ex-housekeeper “took his wife,
who employed her under her maiden name of Silk, to court and won an £886 pay
out”, and that “Mr Djanogly refused to help after she wrote to him about her
unpaid wages”. The article then said that another publication “reported that an
unnamed second housekeeper who later worked for the couple also won a case
against them. She was awarded £3,148 in unauthorised wage deductions, overtime
and annual leave by an employment judge, the paper said.” It finished with: “Mr
Djanogly was contacted for comment.”
3. On 5
February, the day before the article was published, the publication contacted
Mr Djanogly at his parliamentary email address. This email noted that another
publication had reported allegations against the complainants and that it was
following these up in a report to be published the next day. The complainant
did not respond to this email.
4. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the
headline “Tory MP’s housekeeper was treated ‘worse than slave’ at £7m home”.
5. The
complainants said that the article was in breach of Clause 1, as they said it
had reported the employment tribunal findings inaccurately. It said that the
tribunal “did not find the two claimants to be mistreated, let alone be
slaves”.
6. The
complainants also said the article was inaccurate because the publication
appeared to have based the article on claims made by another publication,
without speaking to anyone involved nor providing evidence for the claims.
7. The
complainants also said that had Mr Djanogly’s rebuttal statement on the matter
– which he said had been used in other media – been included, the article would
have been more balanced. 8. The complainants also said that the article
breached Clause 2 because it referred to their home life, which they considered
private. Furthermore, they said the article breached this Clause because it was
Ms Silk who was the respondent in the employment tribunal, rather than Mr Djanogly.
They questioned whether the tribunal findings would have been reported on had
Mr Djanogly not been a member of parliament.
9. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said the word
“mistreatment” did not feature in the article, nor had the article at any point
stated as fact that the women were slaves. It said it had quoted directly from
the ex-housekeeper – who had said that she was treated “worse than a slave” –
and distinguished the quotes from her as her comment on her experiences, in
both the headline and the article itself, as it was required to do under the
terms of Clause 1.
10. The
publication said balance was not an issue covered by the Code and therefore
Clause 1 was not engaged on this point.
11. The
publication did not accept that the complainant’s concerns that claims had been
taken from another publication’s article without speaking to anyone else
involved engaged the Code. It said issues of syndication were not covered by
the Code and there was no standalone prohibition against publishing information
which has first appeared elsewhere, where the Code is not otherwise breached.
It noted that, in any event, it had approached one of the complainants for
comment, and he had not responded.
12. The
publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 2, as there was no
information in the article over which the complainants had a reasonable
expectation of privacy. It said the employment disputes between the complainant
and the two ex-housekeepers had led to open court proceedings with no reporting
restrictions; these proceedings, and all information disclosed during them,
were therefore a matter of public record. It further noted that while Ms Silk
was listed as the housekeepers’ employer, the role of housekeeper was a
domestic position undertaken at the family home and Mr Djanogly benefited from
the services of the housekeepers – it was not in dispute that he was also
resident in the home where the housekeeper worked. It also noted that Mr
Djanogly’s relevance to the story at hand was demonstrated by the fact he had
been approached by one of the ex-housekeepers for wages and had refused to
assist her.
Relevant
Clause 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.
Findings
of the Committee
13. The
Committee firstly considered whether the employment tribunal findings had been
reported inaccurately. The headline stated the “housekeeper was treated ‘worse
than slave’”, and the complainants disputed that this was the case and the
tribunal had not made any such finding. The Committee first noted the headline
at no point claimed to be a summary of the tribunal findings. Additionally, the
Committee noted the use of the term “slave” in the headline appeared within
inverted commas, which suggested that this was a characterisation or viewpoint
and that the article would elaborate further on what was meant by the term. The
first sentence of the article then explained: “a former housekeeper to a senior
Tory MP has claimed she was treated ‘worse than a slave’ after taking his wife
to court for unpaid wages’”. The use of the inverted commas as well as the word
“claimed” demonstrated the term “slave” was a characterisation of the
housekeeper of her personal experience, rather than a claim of fact that the
tribunal had made any such finding. It was also made clear that the housekeeper
had spoken “after taking [one of the complainants] to court”, and therefore
that this had not been heard during the tribunal itself. Where the claim was
clearly distinguished as the housekeeper’s view of her experience, the basis on
which her view was formed was set out in the article, and it was made clear
that the case itself resulted from “unpaid wages”, there was no breach of
Clause 1 found on this point.
14. The
Committee then considered the complainants’ concerns that the claims in the
article had been taken from another article without speaking to the people
involved, or providing further evidence. In circumstances where the Committee
had not found that the article was inaccurate, distorted, or misleading, this
did not represent a failure to take care, and there was no breach of Clause 1.
15. The
complainant said that, as the article did not include a statement from Mr
Djanogly, it was not balanced. There is no requirement in the Code for articles
to be “balanced”. The Preamble to the Code states that the fundamental right to
freedom of expression includes the ability to be partisan. Where there were no
inaccuracies identified in the article, there was no obligation for the
publication to ensure the article was “balanced”. There was no breach of Clause
1.
16. The
Committee then considered the complainants’ concerns about the article being in
breach of Clause 2 because it had reported on information about their private
home life. The Committee first noted that all the information disclosed in the
employment tribunals was in the public domain and the complaints had no
reasonable expectation of privacy over this information. The Committee then
noted the complainants had not identified any information specifically in the
article that they considered private, rather their concern appeared to be that
the article represented a general intrusion into their private home life.
However, the information in the article did not reveal any personal or intimate
details about the couple’s home life. Rather, the article focused on the
behaviour of the couple in a professional rather than personal context - their
roles as employers of the ex-housekeepers. There was no breach of Clause 2 on
this point.
Conclusions
17. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial action required
18. N/A
Date
complaint received: 07/02/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/07/2023