Decision of the Complaints Committee 17466-16 O’Sullivan v The Mail on Sunday
Summary of
complaint
1.
John O’Sullivan complained to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail on Sunday breached
Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined, “Sacked: driver exposed by MoS for abusing boy in his
taxi”, published on 21 May 2017. The article also appeared online headlined,
“Taxi driver who was allowed to continue working for three years after being
convicted of abusing an autistic boy is FINALLY sacked”, published on 21 May
2017.
2. The article reported that the complainant had recently
been “sacked” by his taxi firm. The article reported that this was in response
to an earlier article by the publication, which had stated that the complainant
had had his taxi licence renewed and had continued to work as a taxi driver for
three years, despite being convicted for assault against a child in 2013. The
article detailed the nature of the offence, stating that the complainant had
“brutally assaulted the 13-year-old, trussing him up with bungee cords,” and included
a photograph of the complainant. The online article was substantially the same
as the print article.
3. The complainant said that it was inaccurate to
state that he had been “sacked” by the taxi firm, as he was self-employed. He
also said the term “sacked” was misleading in the circumstances, as he had
parted amicably from the taxi firm after threats to his safety were made.
4. The complainant also raised concern that the
article was misleading as he had pleaded guilty to using unauthorised
restraints on the child and did not believe his actions amounted to assault.
5. The complainant said that the publication of his
photograph represented an intrusion into his private life as it had been taken
and published without his consent.
6. The newspaper did not accept that it had
breached the Code. It provided a copy of a press release issued by the taxi
firm the complainant had driven for, stating that his engagement with the firm
had been terminated with immediate effect. The newspaper said that the term
“sacked” did not have a specific legal meaning and was appropriate in this
instance, regardless of his employment status, as he was no longer permitted to
drive for the taxi firm in question. The newspaper said it was accurate for the
article to state he had been found guilty of assaulting a child, and provided
court documents which showed he had been convicted of two counts of assault.
7. The newspaper said that the photograph published
was taken by a freelance photographer in a public street where the complainant
did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Relevant Code Provisions
8. 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.
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.
Findings of the
Committee
9.
The complainant had been convicted of two counts of assault against a child,
which had accurately been reported in the article. Furthermore, the article had
detailed the nature of the assault, which related to the illegal restraint of a
child. The article was not inaccurate on this point.
10.
The taxi firm the complainant had driven for issued a press release stating
that his employment had been terminated with immediate effect. Where the
complainant was no longer permitted to drive for the firm, regardless of his
employment status, it was not inaccurate for the article to state that the
complainant had been “sacked.” There was no breach of Clause 1.
11.
The photograph was used to show the complainant’s likeness in relation to the
article. It did not show him engaged in any private activity, and did not
disclose any private information about the complainant. There was no breach of
Clause 2.
Conclusions
12.
The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action
Required
13.
N/A
Date complaint received: 11/08/2017
Date decision issued: 07/11/2017
Back to ruling listing