00083-25 O’Leary v ipswichstar.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Donald O’Leary complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that ipswichstar.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ipswich man accused of selling holidays that never happened”, published on 4 June 2024.

2. The article – a court report which appeared online only - reported that the complainant “appeared in court charged with 26 counts of fraud relating to taking money for holidays, clothes and camping equipment which they never received. Donald O’Leary, of Bramford Road, appeared before Cardiff Magistrates’ Court on Thursday”. It also reported that he “stands accused of 26 counts of fraud by false representation, all of which allegedly occurred between October of 2019 and June of last year.” The article reported he “has been ordered to surrender his passport to police in Ipswich and has been ordered not to enter Wales for any reason besides court appearances. He has also been placed under a curfew and has been ordered to remain inside his home in Bramford Lane between 9pm and 6am each evening. He will also report to police in Ipswich between 12pm and 4pm each day”.

3. The complainant initially contacted the newspaper by telephone regarding his address which he said the article had reported inaccurately. He said his road was Bramford Lane, not Bramford Road.

4. The complainant then complained to IPSO on 8 January. He said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it claimed he had 26 charges against him, whereas the correct position was that he had initially been charged with 24 offences. He provided a “Notice of Grant of Bail” dated 15 August 2024 which listed 24 charges. He also said that several charges had since been dropped.

5. In addition, the complainant said the article reported his bail conditions inaccurately. He said that he had not been given a tag, nor did he need to sign bail daily. He said he had not been subject to a curfew since August 2024. He provided an email from October 2024 where a member of staff at court who confirmed, that his bail conditions at that time did not require him to wear a tag.

6. During the investigation, the complainant provided his “defence statement” and a “notice of application for court to consider bail” from his solicitor. This letter listed his original bail conditions as: “1. To live and sleep each night at [his address] 2. Curfew between the hours of 9pm and 6am and to be electronically monitored. 3. Not to contact directly or indirectly any prosecution witness. 4. To surrender any passport in his possession. 5. Not to enter Wales save to attend court and for a pre-arranged appointment with your legal team.”. This also stated bail was considered on 4 July, that bail was varied on 5 August and that “the monitor was due to be removed”. It said EMS confirmed the electronic tag could be removed on 6 August.

7. On 13 March 2025, the complainant said his bail condition which prevented him from entering Wales had since been removed, following the publication of the article, and he could have his passport back.

8. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate as it had not included contextual information such as that he had refunded the individuals the money they had paid him three years ago. He said the portrayal of his character was misleading and did not reflect his contributions to society, such as organising hiking events and humanitarian efforts. He also said he had not pleaded guilty and the omission of his plea rendered the article misleading.

9. The complainant said the article breached Clause 2 and Clause 3 as it had published his street-level address which could potentially expose his family to harm and harassment. He said this was an intrusion into his family life. The complainant said that there was a court reporting restriction in relation to his case – however he did not provide any documentation to support this.

10. In regard to Clause 1, the newspaper said it had relied on information heard at court supplied by a reputable agency reporter. It said this reporter had scrupulously recorded the information from the case, particularly as there were numerous charges. The newspaper said it would follow the trial and report on the verdict - it said the article had made no assumption of guilt. The publication said following the complaint, the reporter had cross-checked the story with the agency’s notes and was content it was accurate The publication provided screenshots of the notes during IPSO’s investigation.

11. Notwithstanding this, the publication accepted that the address had been reported inaccurately and said this was amended after it had verified this information with the court.

12. On 28 February the publication said if it was shown evidence, it would update the article to include the complainant’s position that he had repaid the money. The publication said this would be given prominence in line with the original positioning of the story.

13. The court notes said: “Curfew conditions to be electronically monitored”, “report to police station. Police Station Name Ipswich Between 12.00 And 16.00 Reporting days Mondays and Fridays.” They also accurately referred to the complainant’s address as “Bramford Lane”. The publication said it had accurately reported the bail and curfew conditions as ordered at the time in good faith. It said the conditions stated in the complainant’s notice of application were also consistent with the article. However, on 10 March, it said it was happy to remove the statement about reporting to police every day based on the complainant’s documents. It said if new material became available it would update the story.

14. The publication provided a court log which listed 26 charges against the complainant, and therefore said the article was accurate on this point – this log included two additional charges to the Notice of Grant of Bail including one charge dated 2 August 2020 and another dated 1 September 2020. It had also provided Courtdesk notes which detailed 28 charges – these included an additional charge dated 1 January 2022 and another dated 1 August 2020 which appeared on neither the Court Log nor the Notice of Grant of Bail.

15. The publication said if any charges had been dropped it was happy to update the story and said it would continue to follow the case when it reached the Crown Court. On 19 March, the publication confirmed it had amended the reported 26 charges to 24 and removed all the reference to bail conditions – but had not added a correction to the article.

16. The newspaper said publishing the defendant’s address was standard procedure and this helped to correctly distinguish the complainant from other individuals with the same name, and therefore was not a breach of Clause 2 or 3.

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.

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.

Findings of the Committee

17. First the Committee considered the reporting of the complainant’s address. It noted that the court documents and journalist notes had referred to the address accurately as Bramford Lane. The article had inaccurately referred to it both as “Road” and “Lane” within the text. The Committee noted the importance of court reports as an accurate record of what was heard in court and their role in correctly identifying the defendant. Where the court notes had included the accurate address, the newspaper had not taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. There was a breach of Clause 1(i) on this point.

18. The Committee considered this was significantly inaccurate given the article was a court report and the inclusion of accurate addresses help identify the correct defendant – there was potential for the wrong person to be identified. Where the newspaper had not offered a correction, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

19. Regarding the complainant’s charges, the Committee noted that all three pieces of information it had been provided with appeared to list a different number of charges. The documents from the court were different: the court log had recorded 26 charges, whereas the Notice of Grant of Bail had recorded only 24. The court notes provided by the newspaper had shown 28 charges. However, while there was conflicting information in regard to the charges, the newspaper was entitled to rely on the court log given this was an official court document. As such, the newspaper had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

20. The complainant’s position was that there were 24 charges against him, and he supplied a Notice of Grant of Bail which supported this. In this instance, the Committee noted that where three different figures in relation to the charges had appeared on various court documents or notes from court, it was not able to establish the correct position. However, it noted that the newspaper had eventually amended the article to state 24 charges where the complainant had been able to provide alternative legal documents to support his position. In this instance the Committee was not able to establish the correct position and in lieu of this information it was unable to determine how significant the alleged inaccuracy was. The Committee did not make a finding on this aspect of the complaint, but welcomed the amendment to the article.

21. The Committee next turned to the reported bail conditions. It noted that the court notes said “Curfew conditions to be electronically monitored”, however, in any case the article had not referred to a tag and therefore there was no inaccuracy on this point. Further, while it acknowledged that the bail conditions may have since been updated, the newspaper had taken sufficient care to report what was heard in court in relation to the curfew. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

22. In regard to the claim that complainant needed to report to the police daily, the Committee noted that the publication had provided court notes which said “report to police station. Police Station Name Ipswich Between 12.00 And 16.00 Reporting days Mondays and Fridays”. However, the complainant had also provided a court document which set out the bail conditions and reporting to the police station was not listed. As such, the Committee considered the article did not accurately reflect the court notes. Therefore, the Committee considered the newspaper had not taken care not to publish inaccurate misleading or distorted information on this point. There was a further breach of Clause 1 (i).

23. The Committee considered this reference was significantly inaccurate given the notes indicated the complainant did not need to attend the police station daily and the complainant had provided a solicitor’s letter which did not list reporting to the police station as a bail condition at all. The inaccuracy was significant given the importance of accurately reporting what occurred at court. The newspaper eventually removed this reference, however it had not offered to publish a correction to correct the record. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

24. With regards to the information the complainant considered to be omitted in the article, the Committee noted that the article was a court report which reported on multiple charges of fraud against the complainant. Newspapers are entitled to select which information they publish provided they do not breach the Code. Omitting information about the complainant’s initiatives or the fact that he had refunded various individuals did not render the article significantly inaccurate where it reported on the complainant’s appearance in court. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

25. The Committee considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2. It noted that in accordance with the principle of open justice, newspapers are generally entitled to report information that has been disclosed in open court absent of a reporting restriction – which the complainant did not provide. The complainant’s address was recorded in the reporter’s notes from court and therefore the Committee did not consider the publication of his partial address represented an intrusion into his private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

26. Finally, the Committee considered the complaint under Clause 3. Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when gathering news, including the nature and extent of their contacts with the subject of the story. The complainant had had no contact with the reporter prior to the publication of the article and the publication of one article reporting on the complainant’s open court case did not represent persistent pursuit, or intimidating and harassing behaviour. There was no breach of Clause 3.

Conclusions

27. The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

28. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

29. The Committee considered that reporting the complainant’s address inaccurately was significant given the importance of accuracy in court reports and the potential to misidentify the complainant. It also considered it was significantly inaccurate to report the complainant needed to “report to police in Ipswich between 12pm and 4pm each day”. Where the notes taken in court had stated that the complainant needed to report to police on Mondays and Fridays between 12pm and 4pm and this reference was eventually removed, and the address was corrected, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should make clear the article was inaccurate to report he had to report to police in Ipswich between 12pm and 4pm each day, and that this was not a bail condition. It should also make clear his address is Bramford Lane, not Bramford Road.

30. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. As the article has been amended, the correction should be published as a footnote. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 08/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 29/04/2025