00575-25 Gunn v Royal Borough Observer

Summary of Complaint

1. Martin Gunn complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Royal Borough Observer breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Stalker bought same car and dog as his victim”, published on 7 February 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on the front page and continued on page four - reported on a court case relating to a stalking conviction in which the complainant was the defendant. It reported that the complainant “was released on bail conditions not to contact the victim, but the court heard how she had subsequently seen him filming her from his home as she walked past and approached her at Costa Coffee in the town.” The article also reported that, he “was arrested and charged after he texted the victim on Valentine’s Day last year, having still not gotten over the fling, a court heard.”

3. The article also reported that during his court hearing the complainant appeared by video link from a family member’s home, and named the town this home was located in. It reported that an interim stalking protection order against him “included requirements that he would have to provide police with access to any electronic devices and social media accounts he owned”.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said the article contained three points that were both inaccurate and had not been heard in court: that he had approached the victim in Costa Coffee in the town; that he had texted her on Valentine’s Day; and that the interim stalking order included the requirement to provide police with access to any social media accounts he owned.

5. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 2 by reporting that he was residing with a specific family member, and the name of the town.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the article was a factually accurate court report that was in the public interest to publish. It did not accept that it was inaccurate to report it had been heard in court that the complainant had approached the victim “at Costa Coffee in the town” whilst on bail. It provided the reporter’s contemporaneous shorthand 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”.

7. 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 shorthand 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.

8. With regards to the claim that the interim stalking protection order against him included requirements to provide police with his social media accounts, the publication provided a copy of the order. It stated that the complainant must “Notify the Police within 72 hours if he already owns or acquires […] a mobile device or other digital device capable of contacting the victim and […] Provide such details of […] identifying details of the social media account, PIN codes/passwords etc”. It also stated that the complainant must not contact the victim “includ[ing] ‘a request to follow’, ‘like’ or ‘comment on’ social media accounts/posts” of the victim. The publication said this made clear that the complainant’s social media access was restricted in the way described in the article.

9. With regards to Clause 2, the publication provided notes which detailed the family member and their address which the complainant was residing in. It said these notes demonstrated the information was heard in open court, and therefore was not information over which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. The complainant stated that the interim stalking protection order meant that he was only obliged to provide details of any social media accounts in the event that there was any future stalking activities, where the police considered such offences had been committed.

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.

v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

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

13. 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. The Committee was grateful for this information when making its decision.

14. The Committee first considered the claim that it was heard in court the complainant “approached her [the victim] at Costa Coffee in the town” 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).

15. 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.

16. The Committee next considered the claim that 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 provided 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.

17. With regards to being obliged to provide police with access to any social media accounts he owned, the Committee considered the interim stalking protection order that the court had applied. This set out that the complainant was required to notify the police of any mobile device or other digital device capable of contacting his victim that he owned or acquired, including details of “the social media account, PIN codes/passwords”. Where the complainant was required to provide police with social media accounts he had access to via a digital device, and any passwords and pin codes necessary to use them, it was not inaccurate for the newspaper to report that an interim stalking protection order against him “included requirements that he would have to provide police with access to any electronic devices and social media accounts he owned”. There was no breach of Clause 1.

18. The article reported the town the complainant was residing in, and stated his relationship with the family member who he was staying with. The Committee noted that the family member was not named. In accordance with the principle of open justice, newspapers are generally entitled to report information that has been disclosed in open court and is not subject to a reporting restriction. The complainant’s location was disclosed in court, and the town in which someone resides did not represent an intrusion into his private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

19. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

20. N/A

Date complaint received: 06/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 01/10/2025