Resolution Statement – 00080-25 A woman v The Sun

Summary of Complaint

1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “JAIL TEEN 'STABS 10 PRISON OFFICERS'”, published on 2 January 2025.

2. The article reported that the complainant’s son – a “teen held for plotting a terror attack” – “ha[d] allegedly stabbed ten prison officers since he was locked up”. It went on to report that he “sliced off one’s ear” and had “also tried to convert fellow detainees”.

3. It then reported that according to a source, the complainant’s son was “ ‘mollycoddled’”. The article also said that he had “his own cell with a TV, DVD player, games console, desk and ensuite toilet”. It then reported that “fearful guards regularly don full riot gear when they deliver food or let him out to shower or exercise”.

4. The article went on to include comments from an anonymous source, who reportedly said:

“’He uses improvised weapons made from things like plastic or toothbrushes […] 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.’”

5. The article closed with a comment for the Youth Custody Service, who were reported as having said: “’All assaults on staff are taken extremely seriously’”.

6. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline “Teen, 17, who plotted terror attack ‘stabs TEN prison officers in less than a year’ since being jailed”. This version on the article was published on 1 January 2025.

7. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 for several reasons. Firstly, she said that her son had not sliced off anyone’s ear, nor had he stabbed anyone in the neck who had been “lucky to survive”. She said that court documents showed that charges of this severity had never been brought against her son.

8. Further to the above, the complainant also disputed that guards “regularly” wore riot gear to interact with her son, and said that there was no evidence her son had tried to convert his “fellow detainees”.

9. The complainant also disputed that her son was “mollycoddled” – she said, contrary to the article’s reporting that he had his own DVD and games console, he had actually been held in isolation for around about a year. She also said that her son did not eat Pringles – which she said was a minor point, but highlighted what she considered to be the lack of care taken over all facets of the article.

10. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 2 as it had led to her son being identified on social media and within her local community.

11. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the article was based on information given to it by a confidential and reliable source – and the article attributed the claims made by the article to the source - and that this information was subsequently put to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for verification. It said this included the claim that the complainant’s son had “stabbed ten police officers”, which the MoJ had not disputed. It also said that the MoJ had not disputed the claim that the complainant’s son had tried to convert other inmates, or that he had “sliced” an officer’s ear.

12. During IPSO’s investigation, the newspaper provided a transcript of its call with the MoJ, with the names of the prison officers redacted. It also provided an email from the Press Office, which they said had been sent following the phone call, and which included the following:

“I think the details you mentioned yesterday are broadly accurate – for your reference [the complainant’s son] has been sentenced for some attacks on youth custody staff.

I’ve been told he is not in PPE unlock – where officers wear riot gear to get him out of a cell.

[…]

I was told [the complainant’s son] is separated but because he refuses to mix with others, not because of staff assaults.”

13. The publication said its understanding was that the complainant’s son was not currently in PPE unlock – i.e., custody staff were not currently wearing riot gear when interacting with him – but that this had previously been the case. It said this accorded with what its source had told it. However, notwithstanding this, it said it would be content to add a clarification to the end of the online article – and publish one in its usual Corrections and Clarifications column in print – setting out that a “Ministry of Justice spokesperson told [the newspaper that the complainant’s son] was not, at time of publication, in 'PPE unlock' – where officers routinely wear riot gear to get him out of a cell.”

14. The publication also said that the complainant was not in a position to know what items the complainant’s son had within his cell; when she visited him, she would only see him in the visiting area, not his cell – and the publication’s source had seen a can of Pringles in the cell.

15. Turning to the alleged breach of Clause 2, the publication said that the complainant’s son was being held in a publicly funded institution. His behaviour within said institution was therefore, it said, a matter of public interest – particularly when harm was being caused to staff. In any event, it noted that the article did not name or otherwise identify the complainant’s son, and if he had been identified on social media platforms that was a matter for the publishers of those platforms.

16. The complainant did not accept that the article attributed the claims to a source, and noted her position that several claims were made on a factual basis – such as the claim that her son had “sliced off” a prison officer’s ear. She further noted that there was a difference between “slicing” an ear – which was the claim which had been put to the MoJ – and “slicing off an ear”, as the article reported.

17. She also said that the publication should provide some form of official documentation or medical records to substantiate the article’s claim that an officer who had been stabbed in the neck was “lucky to survive”.

18. She also said that she was aware of what was in her son’s cell as she had regular conversations with senior staff at the institution her son was being held at. She added that she was sure they’d be able to confirm the article was incorrect in its depiction if her son’s life in prison.

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

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

20. During IPSO’s investigation the publication removed the online article.

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

22. 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: 31/03/2025