Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 16498-23 Abbas v Sunday Mirror
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Syed Abbas complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
the Sunday Mirror breached Clause 1
(Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “I have lost my girl and now I don't know if
I'll ever see my grand kids again”, published on 5 February 2023.
2. The article was an account from a couple whose
daughter had died in Pakistan, after having flown there with her two children.
The names and the ages of the children were included in the article. The
article described how the couple had “no idea where [their grandchildren] are”,
and said that they were “fighting for answers over the death of their daughter
in a Pakistan hospital – and the disappearance of their grandchildren”. The
article described how their daughter had been “buried before her parents had
even been told she had died”, that “questions remain[ed]” surrounding her
death. The article also contained a quote from the couple, who said that when
they called the hospital, they “were told she had Covid, then sepsis, then she
was in a coma”. The article also stated that the couple had claimed that their
daughter’s death certificate “contain[ed] ‘huge inconsistencies’” such as
giving “the cause of death for the previously healthy Kelsey as sepsis, a
stroke and cardiopulmonary arrest”, and had “got her age wrong and stated she
had been an epileptic from birth – which her family say is not true”. It
contained several photographs of the two children, including pictures of them
with their mother, and a photograph in which one of the children was not
wearing a shirt.
3.
The article also appeared online in
substantively the same format under the headline “Grieving couple whose
daughter, 27, died abroad don't know where grandchildren are”. It contained a
further photograph of the two children overlooking their mother’s grave, and an
image of the grandparents of the children and their other daughter, holding a
collage of images of the children and their mother.
4.
The complainant was the father of the children. He said that the article had a
huge impact on himself and his children and their wellbeing at school and in
life, in breach of Clause 6. He noted that the article contained an image of
his child’s face, as well as the collage showing both of his children, and both
of their names and ages. He had not consented to the publication of this
information. He said that the grandparents did not have custody, or similar
responsibilities so could not give their consent, and therefore this also
breached Clause 6.
5.
The complainant also said that the topic of the articles – as well as the names
of his children, their mother and the photographs of the children – intruded
into his and his children’s privacy, in breach of Clause 2. He was particularly
concerned about the image in which his child was not wearing a top.
6.
The complainant also said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause
1, as his children were not missing: they were enrolled in school in Pakistan.
He stated that the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, British
High Commission and Wirral Education Department knew their location. He also
said that the grandparents had numerous ways to contact him, such as his
WhatsApp number and email.
7.
The complainant also said the article gave the misleading impression that the
circumstances of the woman’s death were suspicious. He supplied a Facebook post
from the grandmother of his children – one half of the couple quoted
extensively in the article – which stated that the investigation into her
daughter’s death was closed with “no suspicious circumstances”.
8.
The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Whilst it accepted that
the article concerned the children’s welfare, it considered that consent from
the children’s maternal grandparents was sufficient to publish the images –
particularly where it did not think it was possible to contact the complainant
directly. It noted that the complainant was not named, and that it had used the
names of the children as the grandparents said they had no way of contacting
the children or the complainant. It said, therefore, that neither Clause 2 nor
Clause 6 had been breached.
9.
Whilst the publication denied any breach of the complainant or children’s
privacy, it said that, in any case, the article and the information in it was
in the public interest. It said the elements of the story: the death of a
British citizen abroad and how the investigation into this was handled by local
authorities; how the family of the deceased had struggled to get answers about
the circumstances surrounding their daughter’s death; and the involvement of
several British officials, was in the public interest. It also said that, if
any information became available concerning the grandchildren’s whereabouts as
a result of the article’s publication, it would notify the family, which it
said was in the public interest. The publication said that the concern for the
children’s safety and welfare warranted the reporting in the articles and was
therefore proportionate to the public interest served, especially given the
extensive involvement of official bodies in the matter. It said that the
photographs were necessary to show the context within the family dynamic; the
relationship between the mother and her children; their life in the UK; the
“subsequent torment” the family were going through; and the children’s
likeness, in case they were seen. The publication said that the public interest
was considered and addressed prior to the article’s publication between the
relevant staff and editors at the newspaper.
10.
With regards to Clause 1, the publication said that it was the position of the
children’s grandparents that the children were missing, as they had not had
contact with them since 2021 and did not know how to contact them. In addition,
it said it had taken care not to publish misleading information in relation to
the claim that the children were missing: it said it had contacted the police,
who had confirmed that the matter had been reported, but that it was a matter
for the Pakistani authorities. The publication also said that Lancashire County
Council and Wirral Council had confirmed that the family was not known to care
services in either area, and that it had had asked the Foreign Commonwealth and
Development Office a number of questions about the complainant, his children
and their mother, but in response had received only the following statement:
“We are supporting the family of a British national who sadly died in
Pakistan”.
11.
The publication said that the article clearly distinguished between comment,
conjecture and fact, in line with the terms of Clause 1 (iv) and made clear
that the family considered that there were inaccuracies in the death
certificate. It said that it was not a breach of Clause 1 to report the
family’s doubts, as they were not reported as established fact but as their
views. It said it had distinguished their views from established fact by the
use of words such as "claim", "say" and "deny",
and by the use of quotation marks in relation to the family’s specific
concerns. It also stated that two MPs had highlighted the matter to both the
British and the Pakistani Prime Ministers, calling for an independent
investigation, which it considered supported the claims made by the family. It
said that the post made by the grandmother and provided by the complainant to
IPSO simply updated her Facebook friends and followers on the outcome of the
investigation abroad as being closed with no suspicious circumstances; it did
not, in the publication’s view, affect the fact that the family had further
questions due to their knowledge of their daughter’s medical history.
12.
The publication offered to give the complainant a right of reply to the
article, which he did not accept.
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.
Clause
6 (Children)*
i)
All pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary
intrusion.
ii)
They must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the
school authorities.
iv)
Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor
parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is
clearly in the child's interest.
v)
Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as
sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life.
The
Public Interest
There
may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be
in the public interest.
1.
The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
§ Detecting or exposing crime,
or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.
§ Protecting public health or
safety.
§ Protecting the public from
being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
§ Disclosing a person or
organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which
they are subject.
§ Disclosing a miscarriage of justice.
§ Raising or contributing to a
matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical
conduct or incompetence concerning the public.
§ Disclosing concealment, or
likely concealment, of any of the above.
2.
There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
3.
The regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the
public domain or will become so.
4.
Editors invoking the public interest will need to demonstrate that they
reasonably believed publication - or journalistic activity taken with a view to
publication – would both serve, and be proportionate to, the public interest
and explain how they reached that decision at the time.
5.
An exceptional public interest would need to be demonstrated to over-ride the
normally paramount interests of children under 16.
Findings
of the Committee
13. Clause 6(iii) requires that Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents. The article in this case clearly involved the children’s welfare – it described their grandparents’ concern regarding their whereabouts, as well as the circumstances in which their mother had died – and the newspaper accepted it did not have consent from a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult for their publication. Clause 6 was, therefore, engaged.
14.
The Committee then considered whether the publication of the photographs could
be justified by an exceptional public interest, which was required to over-ride
the normally paramount interests of children under 16. The Committee made clear
that its considerations did not relate to the public interest of publishing the
article in general – but specifically to the issue of whether identifying the
children, through both their names and the photographs, was in the public
interest for the reasons provided by the publication. The Committee
acknowledged the public interest arguments cited by the publication – in
particular the concerns around the mother’s death and the investigation into
it. However, it did not consider that publishing the children’s images or
identities was warranted or justified under the public interest for the reasons
cited, when balanced against the potential for intrusion into the children’s
lives from identifying them in the context of these claims. On this basis, the
Committee upheld the breach of Clause 6(iii).
15.
With regards to Clause 2, the children had been identified by the publication
of their names and photographs. The Committee found that the article contained
information over which the children had a reasonable expectation of privacy: it
speculated on their whereabouts, as well as the circumstances of their mother’s
death, their current life and wellbeing whilst living with their father and the
online article contained a photo of the children next to their mother’s grave.
The Committee found that their identification, in conjunction with these
details, represented an unjustified intrusion into the children’s privacy. For
the reasons set out above, the Committee did not consider this was justified
under the public interest and there was a breach of Clause 2 in relation to the
complainant’s children.
16.
With regards to the accuracy of the article, it was presented as an account
from the grandparents’ perspective – their comments were distinguished from
fact and attributed to them by the use of quotation marks and language such as
“claimed” and “said”. The article also clearly characterised what it meant by
the children having disappeared – it stated in the online headline that the
grandparents “don't know where [their]
grandchildren are”, and the print headline stated the grandparents “don’t know
if [they’ll] ever see [their] grand kids again”, and the article did not report
that the children’s location was unknown to everyone. In addition, the
publication had taken care when publishing the account from the grandparents,
they contacted the police, Lancashire County Council, Wirral
Council and the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. Where the article made clear that the children were
missing to their grandparents, and where this was attributed as the opinion and
comments of the grandparents, there was no breach of Clause 1 arising from this
point of complaint.
17.
The Committee also considered that the article made clear that it was the
family that had questions regarding their daughter’s death and the death
certificate – and sufficiently distinguished these opinions about their
daughter’s death from fact. Whilst the authorities in Pakistan may have found
that there were no suspicious circumstances, this did not mean that the family
could not have their own doubts, and it was not a breach of the Code to report
these. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
18.
With regards to the complainant’s concerns his own privacy had been breached by
the article, the Committee firstly noted he had not been photographed or named
in the article. Rather he was complaining that his privacy had been breached by
the reference to the death of his partner and the use of her name. As above,
the Committee had found that the account was clearly attributed to the
grandparents – and made clear their concerns regarding the circumstances and
the subsequent investigation into their daughter’s death in another country.
The Committee considered that the issues raised by the publication of the
article were in the public interest, for the reasons cited by the publication.
Where the complainant himself had not been named or photographed, and where the
grandparents were entitled to express concerns about matters of potential
public interest, the Committee found that the newspaper was justified in
publishing the account. There was no breach of Clause 2 in relation to the
complainant himself.
Conclusions
19.
The complaint was upheld under Clause 2 and Clause 6.
Remedial
action required
20.
Having upheld the complaint under Clause 2 and Clause 6, the
Committee consider the remedial action that should be required. Given the
nature of the breach, the appropriate remedial action was the publication of an
upheld adjudication.
21.
The Committee considered the placement of this adjudication. The original
article had been published on page 17 of the newspaper, and the print version
of the adjudication should be published on the same page, or further
forward. With regards to the online version, the adjudication should be
published on the newspaper’s website, with a link to the full adjudication
appearing on the top half of the homepage for 24 hours; it should then be
archived in the usual way. If the article remains online and unamended, the
full text of the adjudication should be added to the article. If the
information which caused the breach is removed, a link to the adjudication
should be published under the headline. The headline to the adjudication should
make clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint, refer to the subject matter and
be agreed with IPSO in advance of publication.
22.
The terms of the adjudication for publication are as follows:
Syed
Abbas complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the press
regulator, that the Sunday Mirror breached
Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “I have lost my girl and now I don't know if I'll ever see
my grand kids again”, published on 5 February 2023.
The article was an account from a couple whose
daughter had died in Pakistan, after having flown there with her two children.
It referenced their concerns about what happened to their daughter and the
current wellbeing of their grandchildren were. The names and the ages of the
children were included in the article, as well as several photographs of the
two children.
The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required the
Sunday Mirror to publish this adjudication to remedy the breach of the
Code.
The
complainant was the father of the children. He said that the article had a huge
impact on his children . He said he had not consented to the publication of
images of his children, or their names and ages. This was a breach of their
privacy and the Editors’ Code.
The
Editor’s Code requires that children under 16 must not be interviewed or
photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a
custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents. The article in this
case clearly involved the children’s welfare – it described their grandparents’
concern regarding their whereabouts, as well as the circumstances in which
their mother had died – and the newspaper accepted it did not have consent from
a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult for their publication. IPSO did not consider that publishing the children’s
photos, or identifying them, was in the public interest. There was a breach of
Clause 6.
IPSO
also found that the publication of the images of the children, along with their
names and ages, in this context, represented an unjustified intrusion into the
children’s privacy.
IPSO upheld the complaint as a breach of Clause 2
(Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code and ordered the
publication of this ruling.
Date complaint received: 09/02/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/05/2023