00578-25 Gunn v readingchronicle.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Martin Gunn complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the readingchronicle.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Windsor salesman's stalked woman he matched with on Hinge”, published on 30 July 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on a court case in which the complainant admitted to stalking a woman. It described the complainant as a “salesman stalker who moved to the same street where his victim lived”. It also reported that the complainant “was released on bail conditions not to contact the victim, but the court heard how she later saw him filming her from his home as she walked past, and approached her at Costa Coffee in the town”.

3. 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 to the same street” as the victim. He also said this claim was not accurate 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. The complainant said the claim was misleading and had far more negative connotations than moving several streets 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 and harassment.

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

5. The publication accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had moved “to the same street” as the victim, and said this inaccuracy had come about due to human error. It said that whilst it did not believe that this was a significant inaccuracy, it offered to amend the article on 26 April 2025 – over two months after being made aware of the complaint. their offered to amend “moved to the same street where his victim lived” to “moved to an address near where his victim lived”. It also offered to publish the following clarification under the headline of the article:

Updated: An earlier version of this article referred to the convicted man in this case moving to the same street. This was not correct and in fact he'd actually moved near to the victim's location. We are happy to clarify this and apologise for any confusion caused.

6. However, the publication 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” whilst on bail. It provided the reporter’s contemporaneous short hand notes which it said corroborated the claim made in the article: “10th January 2024, defendant walked towards them, victim left when defendant continued to peer into Costa Coffee”.

7. 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 also said the notes were not sufficient to support this claim. 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.

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

8. 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.

9. The publication accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had “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).

10. 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 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.

11. 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.

12. Over two months after being made aware of the complaint, the publication offered to amend the text of the article to state that the complainant had “moved to an address near where his victim lived”, rather than “to the same street” as the victim. The publication also offered to publish a correction beneath the headline of the article, which made clear the original inaccuracy, and the correct position.

13. While the Committee welcomed the correction, and considered it sufficiently prominent given the inaccuracy had only appeared in the text of the article, it found that the delay of two months was not sufficiently prompt to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii). For this reason, there was a further breach of this sub-Clause.

14. 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).

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.

Conclusions

16. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

17. 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.

18. The article inaccurately reported that the complainant had moved “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.

19. In response to the complaint, the publication had offered to amend the article to remove the inaccurate information and publish a correction below the headline of the article – however, this was over two months after being made aware of the complaint by IPSO. 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 a correction, in conjunction with the amendment already offered, was the appropriate remedy.

20. Given that the wording previously published by the publication was sufficient to correct the record – although it was not prompt enough – the Committee was content for that wording to be published. However, a sentence should also be added to the 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: 01/10/2025