00449-25 Gunn v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Martin Gunn complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Stalker, 51, who moved next door to a businesswoman he met on Hinge and imitated her life by buying the same dog and car is jailed for 20 months”, published on 29 July 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on a court case in which the complainant admitted to stalking a woman. The headline reported that he had “moved next door” to the victim, and the text of the article and a photo caption reported that the complainant had “moved to the same street, bought the same breed of dog and type of car and applied to join the same gym as his victim, a court heard.”

3. The article also reported that the complainant “was released on bail under restrictions not to contact the woman, but the court heard he was seen filming her from his home and approached her at a local Costa Coffee.”

4. It further reported that, “despite being in a new relationship he breached his bail by texting her on Valentine's Day.”

5. The article also reported that, during the complainant’s court hearing, the judge had commented that “no judge in their right mind would grant this man bail.’”

6. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it had not been heard in court that he had moved “next door” or “moved to the same street” as the victim. He also said this claim was, in and of itself, inaccurate as he had actually moved to a house several streets away, which he said was located approximately 0.5 miles from where the victim lived.

7. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to report that it had been heard in court he had “approached her [the victim] at a local Costa Coffee” whilst on bail. He said this had not been heard in court, and the victim had already left the coffee shop by the time he approached.

8. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that “he breached his bail by texting her on Valentine's Day” and that that the judge had said during a hearing “no judge in their right mind would grant this man bail.” He denied that either of these statements were accurate or had been heard in court.

9. The publication accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had moved “next door” or “to the same street” as the victim, and said this inaccuracy had come about due to human error.

10. The publication amended the article on 14 March 2025 – 28 days after being made aware of the complaint - to change the words “next door” in the headline to “round the corner”, and the words “moved to the same street” in the article to “moved round the corner”. It also amended the photo caption from “Martin Gunn moved to the same street […] as his victim, a court heard“ to “Martin Gunn moved to the next street […] as his victim, a court heard.”

11. It also published the following correction as a footnote to the article on the same date:

“An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the defendant had moved 'next door' to the victim. In fact, he moved round the corner in an adjoining street to where she lived.”

12. The publication did not, however, accept that these errors were significantly inaccurate, as it did not consider that the substance of the allegation – that the complainant had moved home in order to be closer to the victim as part of a wider pattern of stalking – was inaccurate. To support its position, the publication provided a map which showed the location of the address the complainant moved to , as well as the victim’s home. The map showed that the first address was on the corner of a road parallel to the second address, and the two parallel roads were connected by a third road. It also included walking directions between the two addresses, which showed it would take 8 minutes to walk from one to the other. The publication said the map supported its position that the complainant had moved “round the corner in an adjoining street” and to the “next street” as his victim. It therefore did not consider it necessary to offer any further remedial action under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

13. The publication also did not accept that it was inaccurate to report it had been heard in court that the complainant had “approached her [the victim] at a local Costa Coffee” whilst on bail. It provided the reporter’s contemporaneous short-hand notes from court, which it said corroborated the claim. It transcribed the notes as: “10th January 2024, defendant walked towards them, victim left when defendant continued to peer into Costa Coffee”.

14. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that “he breached his bail by texting her on Valentine's Day.” To support the claim, it provided the reporter’s contemporaneous short hand notes of the judge’s statement, which it transcribed as “Defendant’s been in custody since 16th February. Arrested charged. Despite being in new relationship, on Valentine’s day he contacted victim again.” It also provided a sentencing document from Reading Magistrates’ court, which said that the complainant had been convicted of Stalking involving fear of violence, and that this offence had occurred between August 2023 and 14 February 2024. It said this further corroborated the claim, as it showed that the complainant had been arrested after breaking his bail conditions by contacting the victim on 14 February 2024.

15. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that a judge had said “no judge in their right mind would grant this man bail.” In support of this, it provided the reporter’s contemporaneous short-hand notes from the relevant hearing, which read: “This from the judge: ‘Inviting court to consider bail today. Pre-sentence report does make plain his risk cannot be managed in the community. Only custodial sentence may help to deter him. No judge in their right mind would grant this man bail.’”

16. The complainant said that the amendments to the headline and text were not sufficient to resolve his complaint. He said they did not reflect the significance of the error, and did not put the correct position on record. He also said that, in the context of his court case, the claim that he had moved “next door” and “to the same street” as the victim was misleading and had far more negative connotations than moving several streets or 0.5 miles away. He said that it had not been heard in court that he had moved house in order to be closer to the victim, and that he had only moved a short distance from his previous home. He said it was therefore unreasonable to characterise his moving house as part of a wider behaviour of stalking.

17. The complainant said that he did not consider the reporter’s contemporaneous court notes to be accurate in their reference to him approaching the victim at Costa Coffee. He said it had been heard in court, as part of the victim’s statement, that she had left Costa Coffee before he walked past.

18. The complainant disputed the accuracy of the reporter’s notes in relation to the claim that he had “breached his bail by texting her [the victim] on Valentine's Day.” He acknowledged that he had breached his bail conditions, but said that he had breached bail conditions by driving along a road which adjoined the street where the victim lived, rather than by texting the victim. He denied that he had contacted the victim in any manner on Valentine’s Day 2024.

19. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to report that the judge had said during a hearing “no judge in their right mind would grant this man bail.” He said the reporter’s notes did not reflect what had been said in court.

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.

Findings of the Committee

20. The Committee noted that, during IPSO’s investigation, the publication was able to provide clear records and detailed contemporaneous court notes in support of its position – albeit it had accepted the article was inaccurate on one point. The Committee was grateful for this information when making its decision.

21. The publication accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had “moved next door” or “moved to the same street” as the victim. It attributed the inaccuracy to human error, and had not set out any steps it had taken to verify the information. In light of this, the Committee considered the publication had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate information on this point. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

22. The Committee next considered whether the article was significantly inaccurate on this point - and therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). It considered this suggested the complainant had moved within a significantly closer to the victim than the location he had actually moved to, and that this had been heard in court as part of the case against the complainant. In addition, the Committee noted the importance of accurately reporting on criminal proceedings and the facts of offences which lead to criminal convictions.

23. It was not in dispute that the complainant had engaged in a course of behaviour which had ultimately led to his conviction – the seriousness of which the Committee did not wish to minimise. However, the Committee noted that it was still important to ensure the nature of the conviction, and the evidence heard against the complainant, was accurately reported, given it would act as a public record of the conviction and the facts of the case. The inaccuracy was therefore significant and in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii) of the Code.

24. 28 days after being made aware of the complaint, the publication amended the headline and text of the article to state that the complainant had moved “round the corner” from the victim, rather than “next door” and “to the same street” as the victim. On the same date, it amended a photo caption from “Martin Gunn moved to the same street […] as his victim” to “Martin Gunn moved to the next street […] as his victim”. It also published a footnote correction.

25. The footnote correction made clear that the original version of the article “incorrectly stated that the defendant had moved 'next door' to the victim” – and that “I[i]n fact, he moved round the corner in an adjoining street to where she lived.” The Committee considered that the wording of the correction made clear why the original article was misleading, and put the correct position on the record. While the complainant said he had not moved ‘around the corner in an adjoining street’, the Committee did not consider this to be an inaccurate summary of where he lived relative to the victim – it was not in dispute that the location was less than a mile away, and the “round the corner in an adjoining street” descriptor was supported by the contemporaneous court notes. These showed it had been heard in court that the victim had sent the complainant a text which said: “It is right round corner from me”, in reference to the address he had moved to.

26. The Committee noted, that the claim that the complainant had moved “next door” to the victim had appeared in the headline. It was therefore prominent in the article, which would be read in light of the headline’s claim. It considered that, given the prominence of the significant inaccuracy, a standalone correction was also required. It further noted that the publication had not published a correction until 28 days after being made aware of the complaint, and had not explained why there had been a delay in its corrective action. In such circumstances the correction was not sufficiently prompt or prominent, as required by the terms of 1 (ii). were not sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii). For this reason, there was a further breach of this sub-Clause.

27. The Committee then turned to the claim that it was heard in court the complainant “approached her [the victim] at a local Costa Coffee” whilst on bail. The Committee noted that, whilst the complainant denied that this had been heard in court, the publication had been able to provide contemporaneous court notes which stated: “10th January 2024, defendant walked towards them, victim left when defendant continued to peer into Costa Coffee”. Given the publication was able to demonstrate that it had a contemporaneous record of what had been heard during court proceedings on this point, the Committee considered that the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information on this point. There, was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 (i).

28. The complainant did not dispute that the victim’s witness statement referenced having seen him at a coffee shop, albeit he said she had left the coffee shop before he approached her. Given this, the Committee did not consider it was significantly inaccurate to report that the complainant had “approached” the victim at a coffee shop – she had clearly noticed him at the location, which he did not dispute, and this had been heard in court. As such, the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

29. The Committee next considered the claim the complainant “breached his bail by texting her [the victim] on Valentine's Day.” The Committee noted that, whilst the complainant denied that he had contacted the victim on 14 February 2024, or that this had been heard in court, the publication had been able to provide contemporaneous court notes which said: “Defendant’s been in custody since 16th February. Arrested charged. Despite being in new relationship, on Valentine’s Day he contacted victim again.” Further, the Committee noted that, whilst the complainant disputed the manner in which he had breached his bail conditions on 14 February 2024, he did not deny that he had been arrested and charged after breaking his bail conditions on that date. The Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point, and that the publication had taken care over the accuracy of this claim. There was therefore no breach of Clause 1.

30. The Committee then considered the claim that, during the complainant’s court hearing, the judge had said: “no judge in their right mind would grant this man bail.” The complainant had said the reporter’s contemporaneous short-hand notes did not reflect what had been said in court. The Committee noted that, whilst the complainant denied that this had been said in court, the publication had been able to provide contemporaneous court notes which corroborated the claim. In light of the publication’s supporting evidence, the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point. It also considered that the publication had taken care over the accuracy of this claim. There was therefore no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

31. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

32. 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.

33. The headline and text of the article inaccurately reported that the complainant had moved “next door” and “move to the same street” as his victim. In fact, he had moved to a property on a nearby street approximately 0.5 miles away from where the victim lived. The Committee considered this inaccuracy to be significant, as it gave the impression that the complainant had moved much closer to the victim than he had, and that this had been heard in court as part of the case against the complainant. In addition, the Committee noted the importance of accurately reporting on criminal proceedings and the facts of offences which lead to criminal convictions.

34. In response to the complaint, the publication had made amendments to the article to remove the inaccurate information and had published a footnote correction - 28 days after being made aware of the complaint by IPSO.

35. On balance, and taking into account the steps taken by the publication to resolve the complaint and the fact that the breach arose from a single inaccuracy, the Committee considered that the publication of a standalone correction was the appropriate remedy, in addition to the footnote correction already published. The standalone correction should acknowledge the original inaccuracy, and set out the correct position, which is that the complainant moved to a property on a nearby street. It should be linked to from the publication’s homepage for 24 hours.

36. Given that the wording previously published by the publication was sufficient to correct the record – although it was not prominent enough – the Committee was content for that wording to be re-published as a standalone correction. However, a sentence should also be added to the standalone correction, making clear that the correction has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards, and the wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance.

Date complaint received: 06/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/06/2025