00580-25 Gunn v thetimes.com

Summary of Complaint

1. Martin Gunn complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thetimes.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Stalker moved round the corner and bought same dog and car as victim”, published on 27 March 2024.

2. The article reported on a court case in which the complainant admitted to stalking a woman. It reported: “In May last year the defendant, who had lived in another part of Windsor for eight years, ’suddenly’ moved to the same street as” the victim in the case.

3. The article 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”.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The publication amended the article on 17 February 2025 – 3 days after being made aware of the complaint - to change the words “moved to the same street as her” to “moved to a street near her home”. However, the publication did not accept that the error was significantly inaccurate under the terms of Clause 1 (ii), as it did not consider that the substance of the allegation – that the complainant had moved closer to the victim as part of a wider pattern of stalking and harassment – was inaccurate. It therefore did not consider it necessary to publish a footnote correction or offer any further remedial action under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

8. 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”.

9. The complainant said that the amendment was not sufficient to not resolve his complaint. He said the remedial action taken did not reflect that the error was significant, and the amendment did not put the correct position on record. He stated that in the context of his court case, the claim that he had moved “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 and harassment.

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 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 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

11. 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).

12. 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 that the claim that it had been heard in court that the complainant had moved “to the same street” as the victim was significantly inaccurate, where it suggested the complainant had moved within a significantly closer 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.

13. 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.

14. As this significant inaccuracy had not been corrected, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

15. The Committee then turned to the claim that “the court heard how” the complainant “approached [the victim] at Costa Coffee in the town”. 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”. There, was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 (i).

16. 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 woman 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

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

Remedial action required

18. 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.

19. 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 The Committee considered this inaccuracy to be significant, but also noted that the inaccurate information had only appeared briefly in the text of the article, and that the publication had amended the text within 3 days of being made aware of the complaint by IPSO to remove the inaccurate information. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The 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.

20. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

21. As the inaccurate information appeared in the text of the article, and the article has previously been amended to remove the inaccurate information, the correction should be published as a footnote at the bottom of the article.

22. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 06/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/06/2025