Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 15098-23 Djanogly and Silk v Sunday Mirror
Summary
of Complaint
1. Jonathan
Djanogly MP and his wife Rebecca Silk, complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Sunday Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and
Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in two articles in the
Sunday Mirror, the first headlined “My Hell as Tory MP’s Slave”, published on 5
February 2023 and the second headlined “EXCLUSIVE: Four more come forward over
Tory MP and wife”, published of 12 February 2023.
2. The
first article (which appeared on the front-page of the newspaper and continued
on page 4) reported on the experiences of two women who had successfully
brought claims in two employment tribunals against one of the complainants –
Rebecca Silk – after having been employed as housekeepers at the complainants’
home. One housekeeper was named, pictured, and quoted extensively throughout
the article, with one picture of her appearing next to the front-page headline.
3. The
article stated in a bullet point underneath the headline that “housekeepers at
Djanogly’s home had wages withheld” and went on to report that a “Tory MP’s
housekeeper today says she was treated like a slave, suffered insults, was
reduced to tears and had to take legal action against the politician’s wife to
get paid”. The article described how the housekeeper in question was “one of
two women who successfully took Mrs Djanogly – under her maiden name of Silk –
to court for pay due to them.” The interviewee was quoted describing her
experience of working for the complainants as “slavery... especially when she
used to click her fingers, that’s slavery right there... I’ve got a name, use
my name”. The woman was also quoted as having said: “the easiest way to
describe [her experience working at the properties] is how you think a slave
would work”, and as having said: “I worked sometimes to 10 or 11 at night to
complete all tasks because I would be told off if I didn’t complete them. There
were pages and pages of tasks. I felt like I was working in a prison. I would
break down in my room.” The article reported the interviewee said “she once
told Rebecca: ‘You can’t treat people like this. This is worse than a slave,
this is worse than prison.’”
4. The
article said that the former housekeeper “said she also asked the MP for his
help, but none was forthcoming”. It quoted from an email to the interviewee
sent by Mr Djanogly, after “she wrote to the MP to chase unpaid wages”, in
which Mr Djanogly had replied “sorry to see that things did not work out for
you. I am neither the employing person nor do I have knowledge of the issues
you discuss in your message. The employer is Ms Rebecca Silk.”
5. The
article also reported the outcome of the woman’s employment tribunal: “a judge
ordered [she] be paid £886”. It also reported on the outcome of the employment
tribunal brought by a second, unnamed, housekeeper, who “was awarded £3,148 in
unauthorised wage deductions, overtime and annual leave”. The article finished
by stating that Mr Djanogly “did not respond to a request for comment”.
6. Similar
versions of the articles also appeared online under the headlines “EXCLUSIVE:
Tory MP's extraordinary avocado fruit bowl demands to housekeeper 'treated like
slave'” and “EXCLUSIVE: Tory MP Jonathan Djanogly and wife face complaints from
four more fed-up housekeepers”.
7. Two
days before the article was published, at approximately 11am on Friday 3
February, the reporter sent a ten-page email to Mr Djanogly’s parliamentary
email address with a detailed outline for the basis of the article. This
included quotes attributed to the two housekeepers, links to and quotes from
the employment tribunal – as well as a link to the judgment - , and questions
for Mr Djanogly. At around 5pm on the same day, the reporter sent another email
requesting acknowledgement of receipt. The complainants did not respond to
either email.
8. The
second article reported on the negative experiences of four additional women
who were not named and who had also worked as housekeepers at properties owned
by the family. It included several allegations from the housekeepers, including
that they had been paid less than minimum wage and were owed unpaid wages. The
article also reported “Mr and Mrs Djanogly dispute the claims, stating that all
workers were treated and paid properly and that they ‘do not recognise the
upsetting and ugly picture now painted’. They also say they do not recall
receiving any complaints”.
9. Two
days before the publication of the second article, at around 11am on Friday 10
February, the reporter emailed Mr Djanogly’s parliamentary email address
seeking comment. The email was over seven pages long and included quotes from
the interviews with the four additional housekeepers, and questions for Mr
Djanogly. A response was requested before midday the following day. Mr
Djanogly’s solicitors sent a response at before 10am the day after the email
had been received, requesting the names of the housekeepers mentioned in the
email. The publication did not respond to this request, and another letter was
sent by Mr Djanogly’s solicitors later the same day, denying the allegations
made by each ex-housekeeper in turn.
10. The
complainants said the headline of the first article was inaccurate in breach of
Clause 1. They denied the headline was an accurate reflection of the employment
tribunal, which they said had not found the housekeepers to be “mistreated, let
alone slaves”. The complainants also said that the headline – “My hell as Tory
MP’s slave” – was presented as a statement of fact, rather than as an
unverified claim made by the former housekeeper.
11. The
complainants also said the first article breached Clause 1 because it did not
include evidence to support the claims made by the housekeepers. They also said
that Ms Silk had been the respondent in the tribunal, rather than Mr Djanogly,
and that this was not made clear in the article’s framing.
12. The
complainants also said the first article was inaccurate because the
ex-housekeeper who had been named in the article had gone by a different name
while she was employed in the household.
13. The
complainants also said the article had breached Clause 2 because it concerned
the private home life of their family.
14. Turning to the second article, the complainants said it breached Clause 1 as the publication had approached him for comment without revealing the names of the housekeepers quoted, nor that they were employed seven to ten years ago.
15. The
complainant also said the second article breached the Code because it omitted
to include information that would have made the article more balanced, such as:
one housekeeper had said that Mr Djanogly “was really nice and polite when I
was there”; details about the written contracts between the housekeepers and
the Djanogly family; that one of the housekeepers had returned to work for the
family after she initially left her housekeeping position; and that, at one
point, one of the housekeepers had been “overpaid due to amount of holiday
taken/unpaid leave […] to focus on her new property business”.
16. The
complainants also said the publication failed to take care over the accuracy of
the second article because it was published at 10:23pm, six hours after the
complainant’s email sent in response to the journalist’s request for comment.
The complainants suggested that this was not enough time for the publication to
have considered the points made in his response.
17. The
publication did not accept that either article breached Clause 1. Turning to
the first article under complaint, it said the statement in the headline was
clearly distinguished as a claim made by the former housekeeper by the use of
the first-person: ”My hell as Tory MP’s slave”. It also noted that the former
housekeeper had not said that the headline was an inaccurate summary of her
words, and that she was the individual best placed to say whether her words
have been accurately reported. It then said that the article did not report
that the tribunal had made a finding that the women had been mistreated, and
this word was not used in the article - which explored the ex-housekeepers’
experiences as a whole, including their efforts to reclaim wages.
18. The
publication also did not accept that it was significantly inaccurate to refer
to the housekeeper in the article by a different name than the one she had used
while working in the complainant’s properties; this was the name she had given
the publication.
19. The
publication did not accept the omission of the additional information provided
by the complainant rendered the article significantly inaccurate or misleading.
It also noted that it had approached Mr Djanogly for comment prior to the
publication of both articles and provided the emails requesting comment. It
also did not accept there was no evidence for the claims made by the treatment
of the housekeepers.
20. The
publication also did not accept that referring to the employment arrangements
between the complainant and the housekeepers was an invasion of their privacy.
It said the article was based on an employment tribunal that was in the public
domain.
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
21. The
Committee first considered the complainant’s concerns that the headline of the
first article under complaint was inaccurate and did not reflect the findings
of the tribunal. The Committee noted that the headline in question – “My hell
as Tory MP’s slave” – was presented as a comment from a former housekeeper,
rather than the findings of a tribunal. This was made clear by the use of the
first-person and emphasised by the inclusion of a photograph of the woman in
question next to the headline. The findings of the tribunal itself, that the
ex-housekeepers were owed wages, were outlined clearly in a bullet point below
the headline: “Housekeepers at Djanogly’s home had wages withheld”, and the
complainants did not dispute the accuracy of this. The article went on to
outline the ex-housekeeper’s basis for considering herself to be a “slave”,
presented in her own words: she worked long hours and felt that she had been
poorly treated. The headline was therefore distinguished as the woman’s
first-person summary of her experience, with the article setting out why she
felt this way. Taking this all into account, the Committee considered the
headline to be an accurate summary of the text of the article, and clearly
distinguished as the woman’s comment. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
22. The
Committee noted the article at no point said Mr Djanogly was the respondent in
the tribunal and made clear that the tribunal claim was against his wife.
Additionally, the article reported the housekeepers had to “take legal action
against the politician’s wife to get paid”, and described the ex-housekeeper as
“one of two women who successfully took Mrs Djanogly – under her maiden name of
Silk – to court for pay due to them”. It also made Mr Djanogly’s position on
this point clear, quoting an email from him to an ex-housekeeper in which he’d
stated “I am neither the employing person nor do I have knowledge of the issues
you discuss in your message. The employer is Ms Rebecca Silk.” The Committee
also noted that the complainant did not dispute that the woman in question had
been a housekeeper in his home while he was resident there – regardless of
whether she had been employed by his wife, she was also his housekeeper. There
was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
23. The
Committee then turned to the question of whether it was significantly
inaccurate or misleading to use a different name for the ex-housekeeper than
the one the complainants had called her by. Regardless of what name the former
housekeeper went by during her time with the complainants, it was not in
dispute that she had worked for them and had successfully brought legal action
against them. In such circumstances, her first name did not represent
potentially significantly inaccurate information, and there was no breach of
Clause 1.
24. The
Committee next considered the complainants’ position that the article did not
contain evidence for the claims made by the housekeepers. It noted that there
was support for the ex-housekeepers’ claim – the publicly available employment
tribunal, which the article referred to. The Committee did not, therefore,
consider the article to be inaccurate in the manner suggested by the
complainant on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1.
25. The
Committee then considered whether the publication not telling the complainants
the name of the ex-housekeepers and publishing the story a few hours after Mr
Djanogly’s email was received could demonstrate a lack of care taken not to
print accurate information. The complainants did not identify any inaccuracies
that arose from the housekeepers’ names not being revealed, nor from the
article being published soon after the email from the complainant was sent. In
any event, the complainants were apparently able to identify the women
mentioned, as in the post-publication responses to the publication, the
solicitors gave detailed comments on each of the claims of each of the women.
The Committee further noted that the complainant’s concern that his email was
not read properly was speculative and not linked to any specific claims of
inaccuracy. There was no breach of the Clause on this point.
26. The
Committee then considered whether it was inaccurate to omit to include the
extra information the complainant considered would have made the article more
balanced. The Editors’ Code of Practice does not address issues of bias, nor
omission. It makes clear the press has the right to report one side of events,
as long as it takes care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information, and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. In this
case, the publication was entitled to focus on the negative aspects of the
housekeepers’ experiences, and the employment tribunals, where the complainants
were unable to identify any specific inaccuracies in their accounts. There was
no breach of the Clause on this point.
27. The
final point under consideration by the Committee was whether Clause 2 had been
breached in reporting on the home life of the family. The Committee first noted
that the information disclosed in the employment tribunals was all 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.
Finally, it noted that the women in the article had a right to talk about their
experiences, and the publication had a right to report on these experiences,
provided it did so in a way that did not breach the Code. Taking these factors
into account, the Committee did not find that the terms of Clause 2 had been
breached.
Conclusions
28. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
29. N/A
Date
complaint received: 07/02/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/07/2023