Resolution Statement – 00079-25 A woman v express.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. A woman, acting on behalf of herself and on behalf of her son, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Teen who plotted terror attack 'has stabbed 10 prison officers' - and sliced one's ear off”, published on 2 January 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported that the complainant’s son, who is incarcerated in a young offender’s institution, “reportedly has his own cell equipped with a TV, DVD player, games console, desk, and ensuite toilet”. It said that he had “allegedly stabbed ten prison officers since his incarceration, including slicing off one guard's ear.” The article also said the complainant’s son was “reportedly ‘mollycoddled’” and that he “reported[ly…] attacked another guard after discovering he was not a Muslim. He is said to have also attempted to convert fellow inmates, including during weekly prayer sessions.”

3. The article went on to report that “[f]earful staff reportedly often don full riot gear when delivering his meals or escorting him to shower or exercise”. The article then quoted an unnamed source, who had reportedly told another newspaper: “He’s sliced an officer’s ear off and stabbed another in the neck with a makeshift ‘shank’. That guy was lucky to survive. Yet he’s also allowed treats from the canteen, and loves Pringles. He’s babied and mollycoddled - it’s not right”.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported her son had sliced off a guard’s ear. She said he had never sliced off anyone’s ear. She also said it inaccurately reported her son had stabbed someone in the neck. who was ”lucky to survive”. She said court documents would show that a charge of this severity had never been brought against him.

5. In addition, the complainant said it was inaccurate to claim her son had been “mollycoddled”. She said he had been held in isolation for about a year due to his health conditions and the lack of resources in the institution. She said he did not have his own DVD player or games console, and that he did not eat pringles.

6. The complainant also said that guards did not “often” wear riot gear to interact with her son. She also said there was no evidence to suggest her son had tried to convert fellow detainees.

7. She also said the article had breached Clause 2 as she believed her son had been identified as a result of article’s publication, and the article represented an intrusion into his private life. She also said this had safety implications for her and her family.

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 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.

Mediated Outcome

8. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

9. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the article as a gesture of good will.

10. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.

11. 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: 07/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 29/01/2025