00187-25 Feldman v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Andrew Feldman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 14 (Confidential Sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

2. Between 23 October and 18 December 2024, the complainant engaged in correspondence with a reporter from the publication regarding a story he believed may be of interest to the publication. He later supplied this correspondence to IPSO.

3. Throughout the correspondence, the complainant provided details regarding the proposed story.

4. On 6 November, the reporter confirmed to the complainant that the publication were “interested” in the story – he asked the complainant to confirm, however, that he was only speaking to the publication exclusively, and no other newspapers. When supplying the correspondence to IPSO, the complainant supplied two copies of an email from the reporter - both allegedly sent on 6 November at 16.09. The two emails were identical, except one ended with the following:

“Rest assured, any information you share will be strictly confidential and will not be published or shared without your consent.”

5. The complainant responded that the publication was the only newspaper he had spoken to and, on 12 November, wrote to the reporter again. His email read: “Please feel free to read advice I received from a barrister […]” – he attached a document, written by a barrister, regarding the prospects of the complainant pursuing a civil claim.

6. On 25 November, the reporter and the complainant had a meeting at the publication’s offices to further discuss the story. Following this, the complainant took part in a photoshoot at his property with a photojournalist from the newspaper on 26 November.

7. On 3 December, the complainant emailed the reporter asking for an update and informed him that he had been contacted by another journalist from a separate publication. As part of his response, the reporter commented: “Obviously I can't stop you from talking to other journalists but if you do so I can't guarantee that the story will run in The Times or The Sunday Times as it won't be 'exclusive' anymore. Your choice.”

8. On 11 December, the complainant emailed the reporter again. In his email, he informed the reporter that he did not wish for the story to be published at the present moment – this was because he did not wish to prejudice any court proceedings he may be involved with. He asked for confirmation from the reporter that the publication would not publish any content, or pictures, regarding the story. In the same email, the complainant also stated that he had another story he considered the publication would be interested in. The reporter did not respond to the complainant’s email.

9. The complainant emailed the reporter again on 16 December, 17 December and 18 December, again informing him that he had had contact with another journalist regarding the second story and asking whether him speaking to said journalist would interfere with the publication running the first story. The reporter responded, on 18 December, confirming that he was happy for the complainant to talk to other journalists about the second story.

10. In response, the complainant sent a final email to the reporter, expressing dissatisfaction with the reporter’s response. He asked for written confirmation that the publication would not publish anything about him, nor use any of the photographs taken at the photoshoot.

11. The complainant did not receive a response, and, on 14 January, he submitted a formal complaint to the publication. On 17 January, he complained to IPSO.

12. The complainant said that, in preparation for the story, he shared confidential information with the reporter, including privileged legal advice. He had also taken part in the photoshoot at his property. He complained, however, that the reporter had, without his consent, leaked the legal advice and the images to the other parties in his ongoing legal proceedings. He also said that the reporter had both extracted confidential information from him, and “emotionally coerced” him into believing an article would be published. On these grounds, he complained under both Clause 2 and Clause 14.

13. In support of his position, the complainant supplied an email, dated 11 November, which he said had been sent from the legal department of a company to himself – he later said this was the only email he had received from the company. The complainant said that the email confirmed the reporter had disclosed information to the third party, which had since “prejudiced” his legal proceedings. He said he had made it “explicitly clear” to the reporter that any information shared should be treated with confidentiality.

14. The complainant also relied on the two emails of 6 November from the publication which he said he received “at the same time” from the reporter, one of which stated, “any information you share will be strictly confidential and will not be published or shared without your consent”. He said this was confirmation, from the reporter, that all material he shared would remain confidential.

15. Regarding the images taken at the photoshoot, in his original complaint to IPSO on 17 January, the complainant said he had cause to believe they had been leaked - subsequently, during IPSO’s investigation, he said that this was the case because on 18 February, a resident from the estate where his property is located had shown him one of the images on their phone. He said the resident had informed him that the image had been shared with them by a separate party, who “work[ed] closely” with the company. In subsequent correspondence to IPSO, the complainant said that the resident wished to remain “anonymous” during IPSO’s investigation.

16. The complainant also complained that the reporter had “effectively threatened him”, by stating that he should not speak with other journalists unless a contract was signed and had issued him an “ultimatum” to remain exclusive with him, otherwise the story would not be published.

17. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It stated, firstly, that its reporter, photo desk, and photojournalist, had not had any interaction with any of the other parties in the complainant’s legal action. It categorically denied, therefore, that any information or images had been shared – accordingly, neither Clause 2 nor Clause 14, were engaged by the complainant’s concerns.

18. The publication noted that it was the complainant who had first approached its reporter regarding the story. It said that, following the initial interview between the reporter and the complainant, the complainant had frequently contacted the reporter asking to know when the story would run. During this, the complainant had suggested a second story – the publication did not consider this to be of interest and therefore directed that the complainant may wish to take it elsewhere.

19. The publication noted that the complainant had supplied two copies of an email from its reporter dated 6 November. It said its reporter had only sent one version of this email; this did not include the extract – “Rest assured, any information you share will be strictly confidential and will not be published or shared without your consent”. It supplied IPSO with its reporter’s email in support of its position. The publication said that it “stretch[ed] credibility” to suggest that its reporter sent two emails simultaneously with one version containing additional sentences, as contended by the complainant, and questioned the authenticity of the email upon which the complainant relied.

20. Regarding the email which the complainant said he had received on 11 November, it said that, given its reporter had not contacted the company which had sent the email, it would question its authenticity.

21. Finally, the publication said that it considered the complainant a “serial and unreliable complainant who has made allegations of corruption against a number of individuals”. It pointed to another email, in which the complainant referred to an MP being “compromised”, as well as an email sent by the complainant to a local councillor – and copied to a number of individuals, including both councillors and journalists – in which the complainant alleged that the councillor was exploiting their position to defraud members of the public and protect the company. It supplied this email to IPSO.

22. In response to the publication’s position in respect of the emails of 6 November, the complainant supplied an image showing what appeared to be his email inbox, which included a number of emails sent from the reporter between 6 November and 20 November. The bottom of the image showed an email of 6 November twice, with the following part of the email visible on both: “Hi Andrew, Yes, we’re still v…”. The complainant said this was evidence he received two emails from the reporter, one of which included the additional information regarding confidentiality. He added that he could “see no reason why [he] would fabricate this communication”.

23. Having reviewed the image of the complainant’s inbox, the publication said the last email in the chain - which the complainant said demonstrated the 6 November email had been sent twice – did not align with those before it, suggesting it was a separate image which had been imperfectly added. In any event, the publication also noted that the chain proved nothing about the content of the emails it purported to show.

24. Regarding the complainant’s contention that a resident – who wished to remain anonymous – had shown the complainant one of the images taken at the property, the publication said it did not believe such “hearsay” warranted a response. It reiterated that its reporter had not leaked the images in question. The publication supplied a sample of the images taken during the photoshoot and said that they included no information in respect of which the complainant held a reasonable expectation of privacy - the images showed the complainant, in a suit, looking into the camera, while stood on what appeared to be the grounds of a building.

25. In response, the complainant stated that he could “confirm that there is no evidence of digital manipulation” in relation to the screenshot of his inbox.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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 14 (Confidential sources)

Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

Findings of the Committee

26. The allegations made by the complainant were very serious in their nature. The Committee was clear, however, that the complainant had made a number of claims that were not within its remit. The Committee noted these, but was clear that it was only considering the actions of the publication and the reporter in relation to Clause 2 and Clause 14 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

27. Where the complainant’s concerns that information had been leaked by the reporter formed the basis for his complaint under both Clause 2 and Clause 14, the Committee began by considering the information put forward by the complainant to support his contention that this had occurred.

28. Firstly, the complainant had supplied an email purportedly from the legal department of a company. The Committee was not in a position to definitively rule on the authenticity of the email, which the publication had questioned. It noted, however, that in the correspondence provided by the complainant, it appeared that no legal advice had been passed to the reporter until 12 November – the day after the email had purportedly been sent.

29. Furthermore, the Committee noted that, after the complainant had allegedly received the 11 November email, he had continued to engage in correspondence with the reporter – indeed, on 26 November, he had also taken part in a photoshoot at the property. The complainant had not raised in any correspondence with the reporter that he had received the email which, he contended, demonstrated that the reporter had leaked confidential information.

30. Next, the Committee considered the email from 6 November, sent from the reporter to the complainant, which stated: “Rest assured, any information you share will be strictly confidential and will not be published or shared without your consent”. The Committee took into account that the complainant had supplied two separate copies of this email – the publication had contended that the copy sent by the reporter had not included the disputed extract.

31. The Committee also did not consider that the image of the complainant’s inbox demonstrated categorically that he had received an email in which the reporter had referenced confidentiality – it noted that the image did not show the complete text of the email in question, and did not evidence that the disputed extract had been sent by the reporter.

32. The Committee also noted – in relation to the images taken at the photoshoot that had allegedly been shared – the complainant had said he believed this to be the case because he had been shown an image by a resident at his property on 18 February. The Committee noted that the complainant’s complaint to IPSO had been submitted on 17 January – and hence this had allegedly occurred 32 days after the complainant first stated that he believed the photos had been leaked.

33. In light of the above, the Committee did not consider that the complainant had substantiated his allegation that the reporter, or the publication, had leaked any information relevant to the complaint. It did not follow that the reporter leaked the legal material, given the complainant received the purported email from the company prior to when he appeared to have passed the legal advice to the reporter. It also did not follow, in the Committee’s view, that the reporter would have sent two copies of the same email, at the exact same time, with additional sentences in one version. In light of this - and again, taking into account the severity of the complainant’s allegations – the Committee did not consider that they were supported by the information the complainant had supplied, particularly given that there were questions raised regarding the veracity of his evidence, and given that the allegations appeared to be contradicted by a number of facts of the complaint.

34. The Committee also noted that, for Clause 14 to apply, there generally needs to be a clear agreement between the two parties that the complainant is a “confidential source”, or that the information they are supplying is being provided on a confidential basis. The complainant had not demonstrated that this was the case – particularly given the dispute over the authenticity of the email of 6 November. As such, the Committee did not consider the complainant could definitively be considered a confidential source - and, in any event, for the reasons explained above, it did not consider he had substantiated his allegation that any information had been shared. The Committee also took into consideration that the complainant had participated in a photoshoot which would have, in the event of the article’s publication, identified him. There was no breach of Clause 14.

35. Under Clause 2, the Committee again recognised that the complainant had not demonstrated that the legal advice had been leaked to the opposite parties in his legal dispute. Where this was the case, the Committee did not consider there any grounds to find that the publication had intruded into the complainant’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

36. With regard to the photographs specifically, the Committee also took into account the circumstances in which they were taken, and what they showed. Clause 2 explicitly states that in considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the extent to which the material complained about will enter the public domain – noting the correspondence between the two parties, the Committee considered that at the time the photographs were taken, it was clear the publication was planning on running the story. The photographs were taken, therefore, with the complainant’s knowledge and consent, under the expectation that they would be published. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the images simply showed the complainant at the property in question – they only showed his likeness, which is not, generally, something an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy over. As such, whether the images had been shown to another party or not, the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding them. On this basis, and where the complainant had not demonstrated that the material had been leaked, there was no breach of Clause 2.

37. Finally, the Committee also noted the complainant’s concern that the reporter had misled him, by initially agreeing to publish the story, and by asking that the story be exclusive. The Committee noted that the choice of material for publication is a matter of a newspaper’s editorial discretion – provided the Code is not breached, it was entitled to withdraw the initial indication that it was interested in the story. Where the Committee did not establish either a breach of Clause 2 or Clause 14 – or that the reporter had leaked the information the complainant supplied – it did not consider that the complainant’s concerns on these points raised any breach of the Editors’ Code.

Conclusions

38. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

39. N/A

Date complaint received: 17/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/06/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.