Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 17787-23 Mills-Nanyn v mirror.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Oliver
Mills-Nanyn complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “Man faces £100k bill for trying to get uni student
expelled after ending Tinder friendship”, 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 “campaign of harassment” against
a woman. It reported that the judge had “handed [the complainant] a suspended
six-month jail term for breaching his undertaking to stop bothering” the woman,
with the “aspiring merchant seaman, who currently works as a deck hand on a
yacht, also […] ordered to pay her legal fees” which, according to the article,
amounted to “£98,154”.
3. The
article went on to detail how the complainant “set up puppet accounts on social
media to contact” the woman and “follow her friends and family”, telling her:
“I’d love to take you on a date”. It reported that the complainant had agreed
to "cease and desist" from contacting the woman in March 2022, but
then had 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 asked that she be removed from her course.
4. The
article then contained quotes from the woman’s barrister, who told the court
“how the two met on tinder”. It also included comments from the complainant’s
barrister, who said 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”; and there was “scant chance of him again
breaching the undertaking” as he was “destined to be at sea for the next year”.
5. The
article concluded by reporting the judge’s remarks on the complainant’s conduct
and how she was “suspending his six-month sentence for contempt of court in
light of his lack of previous convictions and the effect of jail on his future
maritime career”.
6. The
article was accompanied by an image of the complainant.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The
complainant also said the article breached Clause 6 (Children) by including
photographs of him when he was a “minor”.
10. 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.
11. 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 – and
transcription – 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”.
12. 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 in
a blog about the case following the High Court judgment. The publication also
said that, where the judgment stated that the pair had met “met through online
dating in the autumn of 2019” and “got to know each other on social media”, the
specific name of the dating app was not significant in the context of the
article.
13.
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 also noted that the complainant’s mothers address
was listed as being in Oldham – a point which the complainant disputed.
14. In addition,
the publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate to describe the
complainant as a “deckhand” and an “aspiring merchant seaman”. It said that
this information was obtained from the complainant’s social media and
referenced the following statement on his LinkedIn page: “I have worked aboard
on both a 53m Private sailing yacht and a 50m charter motor yacht. After
completing multiple yacht deliveries around the UK, I joined my first
superyacht before moving onto my second where I currently work”. The
complainant, however, denied that this information was sourced from his
LinkedIn profile.
15. The
publication also noted that all references to the dates within the article
could be found in the judgment: the complainant and the woman had met in “the
autumn of 2019”; the woman had sought to break off contact with him in “the
summer of 2020”; the complainant had “began a serious and escalating campaign
of harassing behaviour” towards her by “the autumn of 2020”; the woman had
issued a claim of harassment and misuse of private information in “February
2021”; a settlement Order was agreed in “March 2021” for the complainant not to
harass or contact the woman; and, the complainant had then breached those
undertakings “in the weeks or months after them”, including by contacting the
woman’s university.
16. With
regard to Clause 6, the publication said the complainant was no longer a child
and therefore the terms of this Clause were not engaged. It added that the
image was obtained from the complainant’s open social media profile and only
showed his likeness. It noted that the image had been removed, in a gesture of
goodwill, upon receipt of his direct complaint to the publication.
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
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 toward 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.
21. 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.
22. 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 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.
23. The
Committee then considered the complainant’s concern that the article
inaccurately reported that the incidents had 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.
24.
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
25. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
26. N/A
Date
complaint received: 29/03/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 31/07/2023