00577-25 Gunn v Telegraph.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Martin Gunn complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Telegraph.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Stalker moved next door to victim and bought same dog and car, court hears”, published on 30 March 2024.

2. The article reported on a court case, at which the complainant admitted to stalking a woman. The opening line of the article repeated the headline, and reported that: “A stalker moved next door to his victim and bought the same dog and car as her, a court heard”.

3. The article also reported that the prosecution “told the court that the victim spotted the defendant at her place of work in October last year, staring through the window.”

4. It went on to report that the complainant “was released on bail with conditions not to contact the victim, but the court heard that she had subsequently seen him filming her from his home as she walked past and approached her at coffee shop in town.”

5. 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” to the victim. He said he had actually moved to a house several streets away, or approximately 0.5 miles from where the victim lived.

6. The complainant said the article breached Clause 1, as it reported that the prosecution “told the court that the victim spotted the defendant at her place of work in October last year, staring through the window”. He said that this claim was inaccurate and had not been heard in court.

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

8. The publication accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had moved “next door” to the victim. It said this inaccuracy had come about due to human error. On 20 February 2025 – 6 days after being made aware of the complaint by IPSO - it amended the article to change the words “next door” in both the headline and the article itself to “moved round the corner”. On the same date it added a correction to the bottom of the article, which read:

“CORRECTION: A previous version of this article stated that Martin Gunn moved in next door to his victim. He in fact moved round the corner to his victim. We are happy to correct the record.”

9. It also published the following wording in its Online Corrections & Clarifications column:

“An article "Stalker moved round the corner to victim and bought same dog and car, court hears" (March, 30) reported that Martin Gunn moved in next door to his victim. He in fact moved round the corner to his victim. We are happy to correct the record.”

10. The publication said it did not consider the claim that the complainant moved “round the corner” from his victim to be significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted. It said that, according to the reporter’s contemporaneous court notes, both the prosecution and victim described the house the complainant moved to in May 2023 as being “round the corner” from the victim’s home. It said that the term “round the corner” is commonly understood to mean ‘nearby’ or ‘a short distance away’, and therefore “round the corner” was not an inaccurate, misleading or distorted characterisation.

11. The publication said did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that the prosecution “told the court that the victim spotted the defendant at her place of work in October last year, staring through the window”. It said that this claim was supported by the reporter’s contemporaneous court notes, which read: "October 23, turned up at victim's place of work walked by shop window, stare”. It also said the complainant’s charge sheet supported this, as it stated the complainant “repeatedly attended [the victim’s] place of work”.

12. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that it had been heard in court that the complainant had “approached [the victim] at a coffee shop”. It provided the reporter’s contemporaneous notes which it said corroborated the claim made in the article. The notes stated: “10th January 2024, defendant walked towards them, victim left when defendant continued to peer into Costa Coffee”.

13. The complainant said that the corrections and amendments did not resolve the complaint to his satisfaction. He said this was because the correct position had not been put on record. He stated that, in the context of his court case, the claim that he had moved “around the corner” to the victim was misleading and had far more negative connotations than moving several streets away. He said that it had not been stated 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 therefore said it was unreasonable to characterise his moving house as part of a wider behaviour of stalking and harassment.

14. The complainant also said that he did not consider the reporter’s contemporaneous court in their reference to him approaching the victim at Costa Coffee. He also said the notes weren’t or sufficient to support this claim. He said it had been heard in court as part of the victim’s statement that she had left the coffee shop before he walked past.

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

15. The publication accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had “moved next door” to the victim. It attributed the inaccuracy to human error, and had not set out any steps it had taken to verify the information – which was contradicted by the reporter’s notes, which referred to “round the corner”. 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).

16. 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 noted that the inaccuracy appeared in both the headline and the text of the article, and was therefore a prominent focus of the reporting of the complainant’s pattern of stalking behaviour. It also considered the claim itself was significantly inaccurate, where it suggested the complainant had moved within a significantly closer proximity to the victim than the location he had actually moved to, which was several streets away. In addition, the Committee noted the importance of accurately reporting on criminal proceedings and the facts of offences which lead to criminal convictions.

17. 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.

18. Six days after being made aware of the complaint, the publication had amended the article to state that the complainant had moved “round the corner” from the victim, rather than “next door”. On the same day, it also published a footnote correction at the bottom of the article, and a standalone correction on its online Clarifications and Corrections webpage.

19. Both corrections made clear that the original version of the article “reported that Martin Gunn moved in next door to his victim”, and he had in fact moved around the corner. The Committee considered that the wording of the corrections both 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, the Committee considered this to be an accurate characterisation – it was not in dispute that the location was less than a mile away, and the “round the corner” descriptor was supported by the contemporaneous court notes.

20. The corrections also appeared in a duly prominent location, as a footnote on the online article – which had been amended to remove the inaccurate information - and as a standalone correction on the publication’s online Clarifications and Corrections webpage. The Committee was therefore satisfied with the wording of the correction and its prominence.

21. It further noted that the amendment and corrections had been published 6 days after the publication was first made aware of the complaint. In such circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the correction was published with sufficient promptness. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

22. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that the prosecution “told the court that the victim spotted the defendant at her place of work in October last year, staring through the window”. The Committee noted that the publication had relied on contemporaneous short-hand notes made by the reporter who had attended court, which read: “October 23, turned up at victim's place of work walked by shop window, stare” – as well as the complainant’s charge sheet, which stated the complainant “repeatedly attended her [the victim’s] place of work”. It considered that the publication was entitled to rely on the reporter’s contemporaneous court notes and the complainant’s charge sheet, and by doing so it had taken care not to publish inaccurate information. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

23. The Committee noted that the complainant denied that it had been heard in court that the prosecution “told the court that the victim spotted the defendant at her place of work in October last year, staring through the window”. However, given the complainant’s charge sheet stated that he “repeatedly attended [the victim’s] place of work”, the Committee considered that the article was not significantly inaccurate on this point. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

24. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had “approached her [the victim] at a coffee shop” whilst on bail under condition that he did not contact the victim. The Committee noted that the publication had provided the reporter’s contemporaneous short-hand notes from court, which stated: “10th January 2024, defendant walked towards them, victim left when defendant continued to peer into Costa Coffee”. The notes demonstrated that the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information on this point. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

25. 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.

Conclusions

26. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

27. The published clarification put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 06/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/06/2025