00464-25 Hogan v Telegraph & Argus

Summary of Complaint

1. Faye Hogan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Telegraph & Argus breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “BANNED E-BIKER HIT CAR IN FATAL CRASH/Fatal crash man’s bike was not legal for road”, published on 6 February 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on the front and second pages of the newspaper – reported on an inquest into the death of the complainant’s partner. It opened: “a balaclava-clad disqualified rider of an unregistered off-road electric motorcycle threatened the driver of a car he had just crashed into on a Bradford road, an inquest heard.” It said “just over two years ago, [the complainant’s partner] died after being involved in the collision on Leeds Road.” It went on to state: “the driver had said, when interviewed, that he had been threatened with a machete that had come from [the complainant’s partner’s] trousers, which he later placed in a wheelie bin.” It went on to report remarks the complainant’s partner made “before going into cardiac arrest”.

3. The article featured a picture of the complainant’s partner smiling holding a baby. The caption said: “[the complainant’s partner] with his son”.

4. The article also appeared online in substantively the same form under the headline “Inquest into death of [the complainant’s partner] after Leeds Road crash.” It contained the same image.

5. In October 2023, the complainant messaged the publication on social media as follows:

“Hello, you shared an article when my partner passed away back in February last year. I have recently been doing some work with an insurance company to promote life insurance in young parents. I was wondering if possible if you would share the post for me please?”

The publication responded:

“Hi [complainant’s name], thanks for your message. Would you be happy for one of our reporters to give you a call? Best wishes, [name of reporter].”

The complainant responded:

“Hello yes of course [phone number].”

The publication responded:

“Lovely, thank you. Our reporter [reporter’s name] will be in touch.”

6. The complainant then sent an image of her partner and child to the newspaper. The image was also published in an article headlined “Bradford woman's grief after fatal Leeds Road crash”, published on 17 October 2023. The article reported on the complainant’s experience of grief after the death of her partner and discussed the complainant’s work to raise awareness about life insurance.

7. The same image was republished in the 2025 article under complaint.

8. The complainant said the article was in breach of Clause 6 because she said it included a picture of her child which had been used without her consent. The complainant said she had only provided the image of her child to the publication for a previous article about life insurance, a different topic, and the publication had reused the image without notifying her or asking her for permission.

9. The complainant said the inclusion of the image of her child was in breach of Clause 4. She said she considered the image of her child had been used as “clickbait” to draw attention to the article. The complainant also said the inclusion of her partner’s last words before going into cardiac arrest was in breach of Clause 4. She expressed concern that the comments on the article were enabled. She considered that, by enabling members of the public to comment, the publication had disregarded the impact comments could, and did, have on a grieving family.

10. The complainant said the article was also in breach of Clause 2 for using the same image of her child without her permission. She said her child had no involvement in the accident and there was no reason to include an image of him.

11. The complainant said the article was in breach of Clause 1. She said it inaccurately reported that her partner had threatened the driver of the vehicle; she said she had evidence that showed her partner did not get up from the floor after the accident. She also said the article made it sound as if her partner placed a machete in the bin, which she disputed as he was unable to stand, was “gasping for breath” and was not able to walk around gardens to use bins.

12. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code, but apologised for any distress caused by the article. With regards to Clause 6, it said the complainant had already publicly shared the image of her child used in the article and had given the publication permission for it to be used in another article in relation to her partner’s death. The publication said, as a result of the first article, the image of the complainant’s son was in the public domain and it could use it again for a story on the same topic.

13. The publication said, while it did not accept it had breached Clause 6 by publishing the photo, it considered any potential breach of the Code was mitigated by the fact the publication of the image was in the public interest. It said the local area had been found by West Yorkshire Police and the DVLA to be one of the most dangerous places in the UK to drive, and consequently the publication had been campaigning for better driver education and road safety for the last ten years. It said it was important that readers understood what the consequences could be when driving a car or motorcycle. It said the photo – published in conjunction with the inquest report – highlighted that the complainant’s partner was a father with a young child who made a mistake with catastrophic consequences. The publication said it hoped that using the image would serve the wider public interest because the photo would encourage people to take greater care when driving.

14. While the publication did not consider the use of the image to be a breach of the Code, it removed the image from the online version of the article and from its electronic archive so it would not be used again in the future.

15. The publication said because the image had been put into the public domain by the complainant it also did not accept it had breached Clause 2 by publishing the image.

16. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 4 of the Code. It said, where the complainant provided the image and it had first been put into the public domain at her request – and she had never stated that she did not want the publication to reuse it – it did not consider it was intrusive to reuse the image. Regarding the inclusion of the complainant’s partner’s last words before his cardiac arrest, it said the article was a report of the inquest and it had to fully recount what was said at the hearing to provide a complete picture of the circumstances to prevent similar tragedies in future.

17. The publication did not accept the article was inaccurate. It said it was satisfied the article was a correct report of the hearing. It said it was heard in evidence at the inquest that the complainant’s partner threatened the driver. It supplied the reporter’s notes from the inquest to support its position. It noted that the original article said: “the driver had said, when interviewed, that he had been threatened with a machete that had come from [the complainant’s partner’s] trousers, which he later placed in a wheelie bin.” The publication said this meant that the car driver had disposed of the machete, however, on reviewing the story it felt that the sentence could be construed to suggest the complainant’s partner disposed of the weapon. The publication therefore offered to update this part of the article so it read “the driver had said, when interviewed, that he had been threatened with a machete that had come from [the complainant’s partner’s] trousers, which the driver later placed in a wheelie bin.”

18. Notwithstanding the fact the publication did not accept a breach of the Code, it also offered to remove the image of the child from the 2023 article.

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 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Clause 6 (Children)*

i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.

ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the school authorities.

iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.

iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.

v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life.

Findings of the Committee

19. The Committee wished to extend its condolences to the complainant for the distressing circumstances surrounding this complaint.

20. It was not in dispute that the image of the child related to their welfare. The question for the Committee, under the terms of Clause 6 (iii), was whether the child’s parent had consented to the picture being used. The complainant had previously given permission for the same image of the child to be used in an article about her partner’s death. When considering whether the complainant had consented to the use of the image in the article under complaint, the Committee considered the respective subject matters of the articles. Both articles focused on the complainant’s partner’s death in a road traffic accident. Considering this, the Committee found the two articles were materially similar in the way they related to the child’s welfare. The Committee recognised the complainant was distressed at the image being used again in the article under complaint. However, where she had given her permission for the image to be used in an article which was on a substantively similar topic that related to her child’s welfare, the Committee considered the publication was entitled to reuse it. There was no breach of Clause 6 on this point.

21. Clause 2 makes clear it will consider the complainant’s own disclosures of information when considering whether they had a reasonable expectation of privacy over published material. In this case, the image of the complainant’s child had been shared with the newspaper on the basis that it would be published. Furthermore, once the image had been posted by the publication, it had entered the public domain. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the photograph.

22. The Committee then considered whether the inclusion of the image breached Clause 4. The image simply showed the complainant’s child’s likeness – it did not reveal any information which was connected to their experiences of grief or shock in relation to the death of their parent. While the Committee appreciated the complainant would rather the image had not appeared in the article, this did not in itself mean Clause 4 had been breached. Where the image did not mock or make light of the circumstances of the death, the Committee did not consider its publication to be insensitive under the terms of Clause 4. There was no breach on this point.

23. The Committee considered whether the inclusion of the complainant’s partner’s last words before his cardiac arrest was in breach of Clause 4. While the Committee recognised this was sensitive information, unless there are restrictions on reporting imposed by the coroner, inquests are public proceedings and journalists are entitled to cover them. The Committee considered the inclusion of the last words simply reflected the evidence given at proceedings and did not seek to deride or minimise the circumstances in which the complainant’s partner had died. Further, the Committee understood the complainant was concerned about comments being allowed on the social media post of the article. However, the Committee is only able to consider concerns about specific comments which are alleged to be in breach of the Editors’ Code – general concerns that users are allowed to comment do not fall within IPSO’s remit. For these reasons, the Committee did not consider their inclusion was in breach of Clause 4.

24. The Committee recognised the complainant disputed the accuracy of the evidence given at the inquest. However, the complainant did not dispute that the article was an accurate report of what was heard at the inquest. Newspapers are responsible for accurately reporting what is heard in court; they are not responsible for the accuracy of what is heard by the court. The newspaper was able to support its reporting of the inquest with contemporaneous notes. In these circumstances, and where the article accurately reported the evidence heard by the inquest, the Committee did not consider that the article was misleading in the way the complainant suggested. Further, while there was arguably some ambiguity as to who placed the machete in the bin, the Committee considered that the article was referring to the driver of the car – which was supported by the contemporaneous notes. In these circumstances, the Committee did not find that the article was significantly misleading on the point, but it welcomed the publication’s offer to amend the article to provide further clarity. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

25. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

26. N/A

Date complaint received: 06/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/06/2025