Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 18040-23 Carrick v The Sunday Times
Summary
of Complaint
1. Jean
Carrick complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
Sunday Times breached Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 14
(Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“How did a popular boy from Salisbury grow up to become one of the country’s
most prolific rapists? And how, as a serving police officer, did he get away
with it for so long? The mother, friends, colleagues and victims of David
Carrick fill in the details of his dark story”, published on 9 April 2023.
2. The
article reported on the life of an ex-police officer who had been convicted of
multiple counts of rape. It included several quotes from the man’s mother, the
complainant, who was described as having spoken to the journalist “in her
kitchen in Salisbury as she washes the dishes”. It described how she had been
“regularly beaten” by a partner when the convicted man was 15 years old, and
contained quotes from her talking about being abused by the partner. The
article named the complainant as well as her previous partner, and noted he had
passed away in 2011.
3. The
article also appeared online under the headline “The dark life of David Carrick
— by those who knew him best”, published on 8 April 2023 in substantially the
same format.
4. Prior
to the publication of the article on 2 March, the journalist attended the
complainant’s house to speak to her. On 18 March the journalist also spoke to
the complainant over the phone. The journalist recorded both of these
interactions, which were both over 20 minutes in length.
5. The
complainant said that the article intruded into her privacy in breach of Clause
2. She accepted that she had spoken to the journalist, however, she said that
she had told him she did not want anything she said to be published, that she
was just speaking for background, and that the journalist had agreed and said
he would not publish anything she told him. The complainant said she had spoken
about her previous relationship, which was a very sensitive subject for her,
and that publishing the details of what she said tarnished her ex-partner’s
name and reputation to his family.
6. The
complainant said she had never signed anything or given verbal permission for
anything she said to the journalist to be published. For these reasons, the
complainant also considered the article breached Clause 14 – as she did not
believe her name would be published.
7. The
complainant also said that the conduct of the journalist had breached Clause 3,
as she had told the journalist she did not wish to speak to him and yet he
continued to ask her questions and she had felt “bombarded”.
8. The
publication did not accept that the Code had been breached. It said it was
sorry the complainant and her family had been upset by the article; however, it
thought the article was fair and accurate. To support its position that there
had been no breach of the Code, the publication provided the recordings of the
two conversations it had had with the complainant. It said that the complainant
had not requested either conversation to be “off the record” or for no
information to be published, and that the journalist had not been surprised by
this as the complainant had previously given interviews to the media.
9. In
addition, the newspaper said that the complainant did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy over the information about her ex-partner as, during the
complainant’s son’s public sentencing hearing, the judge had stated he had been
“the target of abuse by a step father in [his] teens”. It said, therefore, that
the complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to
the matters discussed and there was no breach of Clause 2. For the same
reasons, it did not consider that Clause 14 had been breached.
10. With
regards to Clause 3, the publication noted that the journalist had immediately
identified himself as a journalist and stated which newspaper he was working
for. Upon hearing he was a journalist the complainant initially stated she was
“not interested”, had “said no to other reporters” and did “not want to know”.
However, when the journalist asked if he could leave his number the complainant
agreed, and then began to speak to him – giving information about where her son
went to school, and continuing to talk to the reporter for over 20 minutes
without asking him to stop. The publication said the complainant never made a
request to desist, asked the journalist to leave or closed the door. It also
said that the journalist was polite, and did not pursue, harass or intimidate
the complainant. The complainant said that both the tone of the complainant’s
voice in the recording, which was amicable and even included her laughing at
points, plus her willingness to speak again two weeks later demonstrated that
the journalist had behaved properly, and it therefore did not consider that
there was a breach of Clause 3.
Relevant
Clause Provisions
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 3
(Harassment)*
i)
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They
must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing
individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave
and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom
they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are
observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant
material from other sources.
Clause
14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists
have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.
Findings
of the Committee
11. The
Committee carefully reviewed the recordings of both the conversations that had
been passed over by the publication. It noted that the journalist had
immediately identified himself as being a journalist and stated which newspaper
he worked for. In addition, whilst the complainant had initially indicated she
did not want to talk to the journalist, she did not ask him to stop or leave,
had agreed to take his number, and then spent over 20 minutes speaking to him on
two separate occasions. At no point during the conversation had the complainant
made a request that the conversation be considered “off the record”, that she
be kept anonymous in any article published or that the journalist could not
publish anything she had stated.
12. Where
the complainant had been aware she was speaking to a journalist, and had not
requested that she not be named or any of the information in the article not be
published, and there had been no reference to her being a confidential source
for the article, there was no breach of Clause 2 or Clause 14.
13. Whilst
the complainant had initially told the journalist she was not interested in
speaking to him, she at no point asked him to leave nor requested he stop
asking her questions. In addition, she had spoke to him for over 40 minutes on
two separate occasions, and the tone throughout both these interactions was
polite and cordial. Where no request to desist had been made, and the
journalist had not acted in a way that constituted intimidation or harassment,
there was no breach of Clause 3.
Conclusions
14. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
15. N/A
Date
complaint received: 17/04/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 07/08/2023