00268-25 Jones v chesire-live.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Joseph Jones complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that cheshire-live.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy)] of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Carer in Cheshire caught on video abusing non-verbal woman”, published on 17 January 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – was a report of the complainant’s conviction for the offence of ill-treatment or wilful neglect by a care worker. The article was published after he had pleaded guilty to this offence at court. The article included several quotes from an individual described as the complainant’s “former colleague which were introduced with the phrase “he said”. The quotes were as follows: the complainant “started by taking musical toys off [the woman], locking them in the cupboard as he wanted to go to sleep”; the complainant had “dragged [the woman] by the arm and pushed her onto the sofa”; “whilst on the sofa” the complainant put “his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming”; and “[y]ou can see he sticks his head into her head. She had red marks on her neck which you can see clearly in the pictures”.

3. In addition, the article reported that the former colleague said, "I videoed him doing it. It all started as his behaviour in the build-up left me to fear something was about to happen”.

4. The article also reported details of the complainant’s conviction – it said he had “denied the charges, but then changed his plea to guilty on one count [of ill-treatment or wilful neglect by a care worker]” and that he was also initially “charged with intentional strangulation. However prosecutors were satisfied with the guilty plea to the other charge, and the second charge [intentional strangulation] will now 'lie on file'”. The article included video footage of an incident on a sofa involving the complainant and the woman under his care.

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it reported that he had put “his hand over [the woman’s] mouth to stop her screaming”, had taken “musical toys off” the woman, and had locked the toys “in the cupboard as he wanted to go to sleep”. He said these claims were presented without evidence and – while he acknowledged the claims formed part of his former colleague’s personal account - he did not believe these claims had been heard in court. He also said that he had not been convicted in relation to these allegations.

6. The complainant said the article was also inaccurate to report that in the video “you can see he sticks his head into her head. She had red marks on her neck which you can see clearly in the pictures”. The complainant did not believe that pictures existed which allegedly showed red marks on the woman’s neck, as he had not been shown any such photographs during his police interview. The complainant said the claim was not made in court and neither was the video shown in court.

7. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2 as he had not given his consent for the video footage in which he was featured to be published.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the claims that the complainant had put “his hand over [the woman’s] mouth”, and had taken away her toys, formed part of the former colleague’s account of what he said he had witnessed.

9. To support its position, the publication provided a copy of the prosecution’s opening statement as well as notes of an interview a news agency had conducted with the complainant’s former colleague, both of which it said had formed the basis of the published article. It said that the notes demonstrated that the complainant’s former colleague had made these claims in the interview given to the agency. Additionally, the publication said the former colleague had told the agency that he had also made these claims in the statement he had given to the police.

10. The publication added that, in any event, it did not consider that any potential inaccuracy arising from the inclusion of these claims in the article could be significantly inaccurate, given that the complainant had been convicted of ill-treatment or wilful neglect by a care worker.

11. The publication said that it did not consider that reporting the contested claims had misled readers as to the basis for the complainant’s conviction where the article also accurately reported the outcome of the court proceedings. It said the article clearly identified the charge to which the defendant pleaded guilty and also made clear that the other charge against him which was mentioned in the article had not been pursued in the proceedings.

12. The publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate to reference a photograph which allegedly showed red marks on the woman’s neck. It said that it had had sight of the videos and photographs taken by the complainant’s former colleague prior to publication of the article. It also said that the photographs had been provided to the police and were mentioned in the prosecution’s opening statement:-

“One video recorded one particular incident and took photos of the marks on her neck….

“The court heard that [the former colleague] took photos of [the woman]’s neck following this incident and that she had sustained ‘fleeting red marks’ to her neck. However, a prosectors were not proceeding with a charge related to that.”

13. The publication did not accept the article had breached Clause 2. It said that the complainant had not specified what about the video was private.

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.

Findings of the Committee

14. First, the Committee noted that its decision focused solely on whether the newspaper had breached the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice. It made clear that its role was not to reconsider matters already decided by the courts, or to rule on the veracity of allegations which had been made against the complainant.

15. The article included several direct quotes from the complainant’s former colleague, who said that he had witnessed the incidents described in the article. The complainant said that two claims made by the colleague which were included in the article - that he had taken “musical toys off [the woman and locked] them in the cupboard as he wanted to go to sleep” and that he put “his hand over [the woman’s] mouth to stop her screaming” - were inaccurate, as these had not been heard in court.

16. The Committee noted that the article did not state that these claims had been made during court proceedings against the complainant. Rather, these claims were presented as the former colleague’s account of the complainant’s conduct and were directly attributed to him by the use of quotation marks and phrases such as "he stated" and "he explained". In addition, the reported claims appeared underneath a short paragraph which included biographical details of the complainant’s former colleague and explained his relationship to the complainant. His connection to the story and that he was not speaking on behalf of the courts or police was, therefore, clear.

17. The Committee was satisfied that due care had been taken to accurately present the contested claims as the former colleague’s account of the complainant’s conduct towards the woman under his care and that they were distinguished from the factual report of the outcome of the legal proceedings which had been brought against the complainant. In addition, the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate, distorted, or misleading to report the former colleague’s claims in light of the offence to which the complainant had pleaded guilty, and the fact that the claims made by the complainant’s former colleague were similar in nature to conduct which had been referenced in the prosecution’s opening statement. There was therefore no breach of Clause 1.

18. The Committee then considered whether the article was inaccurate to report that a photograph existed which allegedly showed red marks on the woman’s neck, and to reference and include a video recorded by the complainant’s former colleague. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s position was that he did not have sight of any such photographs while being interviewed at the police station, and that the video was not shown in court. However, the prosecution’s opening statement had referenced the photographs, and went on to explain that the video had not been shown in court due to technical difficulties. The Committee was, therefore, satisfied that it was not inaccurate to report that the photographs existed, whether or not the complainant had been shown them during a police interview. The Committee also noted that it had not been reported that the video had been shown in court. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

19. been reported that the video had been shown in court. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

20. The Committee turned next to whether publishing a video of the complainant and the woman under his care had breached his privacy in circumstances where it had not been shown in court. In accordance with the principle of open justice and where no reporting restriction order has been made, it is generally expected that information which is heard in court or submitted to the court will enter the public domain. While the video had not been played in court due to technical difficulties, the information contained in the video had been made public in the proceedings, as the prosecution’s opening statement had described the contents of the video.

21. In addition, the Committee noted that the complainant had not specified what about the video he considered to be private and further noted that the video showed the way he had behaved towards the woman and that his behaviour was found by the court to amount to a criminal offence for which he was later convicted. In such circumstances, the Committee did not accept that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the information contained in the video, or that the newspaper required his consent to publish it and to reference it in its coverage. There was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

22. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

23. N/A

Date complaint received: 23/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/06/2025