Resolution Statement – 28800-20 de Waal, Tabor and Runcie
v The Daily Telegraph
Summary of Complaint
1. The Reverend Victor de Waal, his four children, and the
children of the late Lord and Lady Runcie, Rebecca Tabor and James Runcie
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily
Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “Priest admits to 'inappropriate'
relationship with Archbishop Runcie's wife Lady Rosalind”, published on 13 June
2020.
2. The article reported that the Reverend Victor de Waal had
resigned as the Dean of Canterbury over thirty years ago after he had an
“extra-marital relationship” with the late Lady Rosalind Runcie, who was wife
to the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time.
The article also described the relationship as “a friendship”, an
“’inappropriate’ relationship” and an “’inappropriate’ friendship”. It stated
that the relationship “had the potential to rock the Church”. There was a quote
from Mr de Waal which stated: “It was not a sort of a big relationship really,
it was just a friendship. But it could have been misinterpreted so it was
better to leave it.” The article went on to describe how the Reverend had
stated that Lady Runcie’s husband “wasn’t angry” when they discussed it and
that they had remained “on very good terms”. It stated that the matter was
“quietly hushed up” and that Archbishop Runcie “harboured secrets”.
3. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same format under the headline “Priest admits to ‘inappropriate’ relationship
with Archbishop Runcie’s wife Lady Rosalind”.
4. The complainants said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1 as it incorrectly reported that there had been an affair
between Mr de Waal and Lady Runcie. They said that the basis of the article was
two phone conversations between a journalist and Mr de Waal, who, they
stressed, was elderly and very hard of hearing, and had struggled to understand
what was being said to him on the phone. He had misheard the journalist’s
question regarding his relationship with Lady Runcie, and therefore mistakenly
agreed with inaccurate information. While Mr de Waal had indeed resigned as the
Dean of Canterbury due to an inappropriate relationship, this had not been with
Lady Runcie. The complainants said the publication had failed to take care not
to publish inaccurate information by not contacting other sources who had
knowledge of the events.
5. The complainants said it was inaccurate to report that Mr
de Waal and Lady Runcie’s relationship “had the potential to rock the Church”.
They also said it was misleading to report that Lord Runcie “wasn’t angry” and
to say that Mr de Waal and he had remained on “very good terms”, as there was
no reason why he would have been angry. They said that as there was no
relationship it was inaccurate to report that it had been hushed up, or that
secrets were harboured, as there was no secret.
6. The complainants also said that the article intruded into
the private lives of Mr de Waal and the family of Lord and Lady Runcie in
breach of Clause 2. They said it was an intrusion into Mr Waal’s private life y
to be called by a journalist when he was not aware of the full context, and
then have the conversation published. They also said the article was about
private relationships and was distressing to the family of Lord and Lady Runcie
to the extent of breaching their privacy.
7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
supplied the transcript and the recording of the call with Mr de Waal. The
publication said that these showed that, whilst Mr de Waal was clearly hard of
hearing, he often asked for questions to be repeated, answered appropriately to
the questions asked and that the journalist had spoken slowly and clearly. It
noted that Lady Runcie was mentioned by name on five separate occasions during
the conversation, and indirectly on multiple more. It also said that it had
requested to speak to Mr de Waal’s wife to corroborate the story, but was told
by him that she did not want to talk to journalists.
8. The publication said it was accurate to report than an
extramarital affair would have rocked the church at the time, as it would have
been a scandal for a senior religious figure to have an affair. It said that
the term “extramarital relationship” could describe any relationship outside of
a marriage, and therefore it was not a misleading characterisation of the
relationship described by Mr de Waal in the interview. The publication said
that the fact that Lord Runcie hadn’t been angry and had remained on good terms
with him came from a direct quote from Mr de Waal, who described the
conversation between them.
9. The publication said that Mr de Waal had given the
interview freely and with his own consent and therefore it could not be a
breach of his privacy. It also said that there was nothing in the article that
related to the children of Lord and Lady Runcie and therefore they had no
reasonable expectation of privacy over any of the information included in the
article.
10. The complainants disputed the publication’s position
that Mr de Waal could properly hear the allegations put to him. They reiterated
that he had left his role after having an inappropriate relationship with
another woman; however, his family was told at the time who this was, and that
it was not Lady Runcie.
Relevant Code 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 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for 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.
Mediated Outcome
11. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
12. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to
publish the following correction in print and online:
Rev Victor de Waal
In an article headlined “Priest admits to 'inappropriate'
relationship with Archbishop Runcie's wife Lady Rosalind” (13 July 2020) we
reported on a telephone interview with Rev Victor de Waal in which he spoke of
having an "inappropriate" relationship with Archbishop Robert
Runcie's wife Rosalind, during his time as Dean of Canterbury. Rev De Waal has
now stated that he was talking at cross purposes and whilst he did engage in an
extramarital relationship it was not with Rosalind Runcie. We are happy to put
this on record.
13. The complainants said that the publication of the
correction, plus the deletion of the online article, would resolve the matter
to their satisfaction.
14. The publication agreed to delete the online article.
15. 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: 30/10/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 26/01/2021