Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 17786-23 Mills-Nanyn v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. Oliver
Mills-Nanyn complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “‘Predatory' yachtsman
launched social media harassment campaign against Tinder match who rejected
him... then tried to get her kicked off her medical degree by telling
university SHE was stalking him”, published on 21 July 2022.
2. The
article – which appeared online only – reported on a High Court judgment
involving the complainant. It reported
how the complainant – who was, according to the article, from “Oldham” – had
launched a “harassment campaign” against a woman. It stated that the Court
“handed him a suspended six-month jail term for breaching his undertaking to
stop bothering [the woman]”. It reported that “the aspiring merchant seaman,
who currently works as a deckhand on a yacht, now face[d] a £130,000 court
bill”, stating that he will have to “pay [the woman] £30,000 damages and faces
a £98,154 court bill after being ordered to pay her legal fees”.
3. The
article reported that the complainant and the woman had “met on Tinder” in
2019. It said that the woman’s lawyer “told the London Court” how she had “cut
off contact” with the complainant in “July 2020” and described how he had then
“began a serious campaign of harassment, including contacting her friends and
family via social media and via various accounts”. It reported that the
complainant had agreed to "cease and desist" from contacting the
woman in March 2022 but had then contacted her university accusing her of
"stalking and harassing" him. It detailed: how the complainant had
claimed to the woman’s university that she “had been stalking and harassing”
him; how he had needed to “take out a non-molestation order on her” and the
situation had “left [him] scared to leave home”; and how he had asked that she
be removed from her course.
4. It
reported that the complainant had “ultimately admitted 20 breaches of his March
2021 undertaking to not harass or contact” the woman, with his representative
telling the court that his client “accepted his conduct was 'inappropriate -
and by his admission he recognises that he should not have conducted himself in
the manner as alleged or at all”. The article added that his representative had
told the court he was “currently working on a yacht destined to be at sea for
the rest of the year [and as such] there would be scant chance of him again
breaching the undertaking”.
5. The article
was accompanied by a series of photographs of the complainant, including one
which showed the complainant at the helm of a boat.
6. The
complainant said the article breached Clause 1 by referencing the “suspended
sentence” and “exchange of money” as these requirements were later removed by
the court – though he provided no evidence to support this position. This, he
said, was inaccurate and misleading. Further, he disputed the accuracy of
quotes attributed to his barrister within the article; he said he had defended
his innocence on the matter and did not have a criminal record.
7. He
also denied that he and the woman had met on “Tinder” or that this had been
referenced during court proceeding; they had first met at a party. In addition,
the complainant denied that he was: from “Oldham”; an “aspiring merchant
seaman”; and had been employed as a ”deck hand”. He also disputed the
chronology provided by the article: he said the alleged incidents had occurred
in 2019, not 2022.
8. The
complainant also said the article breached Clause 6 (Children) by including
photographs of him when he was a “minor”.
9. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said the article
copy had been supplied by a press agency and published in good faith, and was
based on the publicly available court judgment, which it provided to IPSO. It
said that the judgment clearly set out the complainant’s sentence: six months
imprisonment which was suspended for a period of two years. Further, the
publication denied that the article referred to an “exchange of money”.
Instead, the article reported that the complainant had been ordered to pay the
woman’s court fees – the judgment stated that he “been ordered to pay [the
woman’s legal costs] in the sum of £98,154.63”. It also noted that the
complainant had not provided any evidence to support his position that these
penalties were later “removed” by the court.
10. The
publication also said the article provided an accurate account of the arguments
made by both parties during proceedings and these were clearly attributed to
the relevant legal representatives. The publication provided a copy of the
relevant contemporaneous shorthand notes taken by the reporter to support this.
It also noted that the publicly available judgment detailed how the complaint
“did in recent weeks accept his guilt and contempt in all the particulars
alleged, avoiding the unpleasantness and expense of a contested trial”.
11. The
publication also did not accept that the article was inaccurate to refer to
“Tinder” where the woman’s barrister had made explicit reference to this app
during court proceedings and in a blog about the case following the judgment.
Regardless, the publication said that the specific name of the dating app was
not significant in the context of the article.
12. Further,
the publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate to report that
the complainant was from “Oldham”. It said that the court heard this
information and provided a copy of the reporter’s contemporaneous notes in
order to demonstrate this. It added that this was supported by the fact that
the complainant’s mother was listed on the electoral roll as residing in
“Oldham”.
13. Though
the publication said that the reporter’s notes did not support the references
to the complainant as a “deckhand” or an “aspiring merchant seaman”, it noted
that the complainant’s social media accounts and LinkedIn profile showed that
he at least aspired to work in the yachting industry. Further, the publication
noted that all references to the dates within the article could be found in the
judgment.
14. While
the publication did not accept that the article’s references to “Tinder”,
“Oldham” or his aspirations to work as a “merchant seaman” constituted
significant inaccuracies, upon receipt of the complaint from IPSO and in a
gesture of goodwill to resolve the matter, it offered to amend the online
article to remove these details. It added that these details were
inconsequential and had no bearing on the essential facts of the story: the
complainant was found to have breached an undertaking to desist from harassing
the woman by the High Court.
15. With
regard to Clause 6, the publication noted that the complainant was an adult
both during the proceedings at the High Court and at the time he broke the
undertaking. It added that he was no longer a child and therefore the terms of
this Clause were not engaged.
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 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.
iii)
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.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
16. The
newspaper’s obligation under the Editors’ Code was to report the findings of
the High Court accurately, and to take care over the accuracy of any report of
the legal proceedings; it was not responsible for the accuracy of the Court’s
findings. Therefore, the Committee turned first to the question of whether the
newspaper had demonstrated that it had taken care over the accuracy of its
report, and whether it included any significant inaccuracies in need of
correction.
17. The
newspaper had provided contemporaneous shorthand notes taken during the
proceedings and a copy of the judgment. These set out how the complainant had
breached legal undertakings not to harass the woman and had been found guilty
of contempt of court, and had received a six-month custodial sentence suspended
for two years as a result. The judgment also set out how the complainant had
“accept[ed] his guilt and contempt in all the particulars alleged”, with the
witness statement supplied to the court “admitting the breaches”; the article
did not claim that the complainant had a criminal record as a result of the
case, as he had alleged it did. The Committee also noted that the article made
no reference to an “exchange of money”; rather, the article detailed how the
complainant had been ordered to pay the woman’s legal costs in the sum of
“£98,154.63” and this was supported by the judgment. While the complainant
claimed that these penalties were later removed by the court, he had been
unable to substantiate this or supply any evidence that there had been an
appeal of the judgment. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider
that the report of the findings of the High Court was inaccurate or misleading.
There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
18. The
Committee next considered the “quotes” attributed to the complainant. It noted
that the article detailed the points made by the complainant’s representative
during proceedings. Further, it noted that the judgment detailed how the
complainant’s representative had accepted all “of the allegations levelled
against” his client; and did “in recent weeks accept his guilt and contempt in
all the particulars alleged”. The publication also provided a copy – and
transcription – of the relevant contemporaneous shorthand notes taken by the
reporter to support its reporting of these quotes. In these circumstances, the
Committee was satisfied that the article was not inaccurate in the manner
suggested by the complainant on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.
19. The
complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that he and the woman met
on “Tinder”. In the view of the Committee, any inaccuracy on this point was not
significant taking into account the context of the claim within the article as
a whole, which focused on the complainant’s conduct to the woman and his
breaches of undertakings to the court, and where the judgment stated the pair
had “met through online dating in the autumn of 2019” and had got “to know each
other on social media” before meeting up. There was no breach of Clause 1 on
this point.
20. The
Committee next considered whether the article was inaccurate to report that the
complainant was from “Oldham“. The publication had provided contemporaneous
shorthand notes and a transcript of these notes which showed that this had been
heard during court proceedings. As the article reflected the notes taken by the
reporter at the hearing, the Committee found that it had taken care over the
accuracy of the article on this point and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).
In any event, the Committee did not consider that this was significant and
thereby requiring correction where it did not materially affect the accuracy of
the article: that the complainant was found to have breached an undertaking to
desist from harassing a woman. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
21. In
addition, the Committee did not consider that the article’s description of the
complainant as a “deckhand” or an “aspiring merchant seaman” rendered the
article inaccurate or misleading. It did not appear in dispute that the
complainant was involved, or had been involved, in some capacity in the
maritime industry. In any event, the complainant’s previous or future
employment did not make a significant difference to the main thrust of the
article, which was a report of the High Court judgment. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on this point.
22. The
Committee then considered the complainant’s concern that the article
inaccurately reported that the incidents occurred in “2022” rather than in
“2019”. The Committee noted that all references to the dates within the article
could be found in the judgment and did not, therefore, consider that the
article misrepresented the chronology of events. As such, there was no breach
of Clause 1 on this point.
23.
Clause 6 of the Code seeks to protect children and their welfare. It makes
clear that children under the age of 16 should not be photographed without the
consent of a parent or guardian. Where the complainant was now over the age of
16, the terms of Clause 6 were not engaged by his concerns. There was no breach
of Clause 6.
Conclusion
24. The complaint
was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
25. N/A
Date
complaint received: 29/03/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 31/07/2023
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The
complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process
followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints
Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request
for review.