Resolution
Statement 18759-17 Chiariello v thesun.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Gez Chiariello complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3
(Harassment) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined, “It’s ploddy outrageous: Taxi driver who was abused by
suspended cop slams the decision to make him a finalist for ‘inspiring male
award,’” published on 3 May 2017.
2.
The article reported that a taxi driver, who had lost his licence after a
verbal altercation with the complainant, had criticised the announcement that
the complainant had been nominated for an inspiration award. The article also
stated that the complainant had “left his wife and moved in with lover 15 years
his junior,” and included his partner’s name and photographs of her, including
one which contained a pixilated image of their child.
3.
The complainant said it was inaccurate for the article to state that the taxi
driver had lost his licence solely due to the verbal altercation between the
pair. He also said that the article included inaccurate information relating to
his private life, and believed the inclusion of the photographs of his partner
and child breached their privacy.
4.
The publication did not accept that it had breached the Code. It said that the
taxi driver had confirmed to the reporter that he had lost his licence over the
incident with the complainant. It also said that all the photographs of the
complainant’s partner included in the article were publicly available on social
media. The publication also said it had pixilated the picture of the young
child, who was therefore unrecognisable. Regardless, as a gesture of goodwill,
the publication offered to remove the article from its website.
Relevant
Code Provisions
5.
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
correction, 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.
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
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.
Mediated
Outcome
6.
The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the
parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
7.
Following IPSO’s intervention, while reiterating its position that the article
had not contained inaccuracies the publication offered to remove the online article
and write the complainant a private letter confirming the publication’s
commitment to fact checking and validating sources. The publication passed the
correspondence to the reporter to make them aware of the complainant’s concern
and stated that they had no intention to republish the photographs.
8.
The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
9.
As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not
make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 27/09/2017
Date
complaint concluded: 23/11/2017
Back to ruling listing