Resolution Statement – 00850-24 Boeg v The Sun

Summary of Complaint

1. Simon and Lorna Boeg complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “KEEP YOUR CHOPPER TO YOURSELF!”, published on 20 February 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page 23 – reported that “[a]n army chopper pilot triggered a mutiny over claims he had affairs with two of his crewmates’ wives.” It stated,“[c]omrades refused to fly with married Captain Simon Boeg, 42, after the alleged betrayals”. It said“[b]osses in the Army Air Corps grounded him on safety grounds and launched a misconduct probe”. It said the complainant was “accused of romping with the wives of his co-pilot and door gunner — both close friends of his — in two separate affairs”. It said he “was then posted 7,000 miles away to Brunei, with his wife and children, as a jungle flying expert,” and that “on frequent trips back to Britain he often stayed with a fellow Wildcat pilot at his family quarters on RNAS Yeovilton, Somerset, where their 652 Squadron is based.” It went on to report that “[a]ll three marriages have since broken down, a well-placed source told The Sun.” It quoted further from the source: “The husband had tried to keep it quiet. He wanted to rebuild his marriage. But when he realised that wouldn’t happen he lodged a complaint with the chain of command and that’s when the squadron got wind of what had happened. At first it was just one person who was on the list to fly with [the complainant] and they refused. But as soon as that person refused, everyone else followed suit. It is a tight-knit community and people were really p***ed off. The chain of command had to ground him because no one would fly with him.” The article also included an image of the complainants.

3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline “GROUNDED Army helicopter pilot ‘who had affairs with 2 crewmates’ wives’ sparks mutiny from comrades & faces probe from top brass”. This version of the article was published on 19 January 2024.

4. Prior to the article’s publication, the newspaper approached the complainant (via WhatsApp) as well as his Chain of Command (CoC) for comment. The complainant declined to give a comment.

5. The complainants said the article was in breach of Clause 1 because it was inaccurate to report crews had “refused to fly” with Capt Boeg. They said Capt Boeg’s CoC had assured him at no stage did they receive any refusals to work with him from within his unit. In a statement to IPSO, a the complainant’s commanding officer stated: “in relation to the allegation made in the article that aircrew had refused to fly with Capt Boeg I can confirm that no such sentiments or statements were received by the CoC.”

6. The complainants also disputed that Capt Boeg had been grounded by army bosses for safety reasons. They said he was suspended without prejudice to allow the investigation to happen.

7. The complainants also said the article was inaccurate because it had not been proven that Capt Boeg had two affairs; they said this was still under investigation.

8. The complainants also said the article had inaccurately reported details of the marriages and weddings of the individuals involved in the incident. They said Capt Boeg had only attended one wedding, rather than three. They also said it was inaccurate to report he had been posted in Brunei. They said he had been selected for this position before any of the alleged incidents referred to in the article, rather than as a consequence of them. They also said it was inaccurate to state he had often stayed at the house of the other pilot, as he had only stayed once.

9. The complainants also said that the article had inaccurately reported the ranks of some of the individuals referred to in the article.

10. The complainants said the comments from the anonymous source were inaccurate. They disputed that the Wildcat pilot had intended to keep things quiet for reconciliation. They also said Capt Boeg had made his CoC aware of the situation prior to the complaint from the husband.

11. The complainants also said it was inaccurate to report the three marriages had since ended as they said their marriage had broken down while Capt Boeg was living in Brunei from late 2022 onwards, and not in response to the investigation.

12. The complainants also said the article was in breach of Clause 2 because it included an image of them, which they said was private, and was only available to friends, and friends of friends on social media. They also said the article intruded into their family life, and represented a breach of Capt Boeg’s personal and operational security as a member of the armed forces, which could have implications on his ability to “deploy on operations”.

13. The complainants also said an approach to Capt Boeg via WhatsApp from the journalist had breached his privacy.

14. The complainants said the article breached Clause 10 because they were unsure how the images of them had been obtained.

15. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the article did not report refusals to fly with the complainant were received through the chain of command, but that “comrades refused to fly […] after the alleged betrayals.” It said at least two pilots from separate squadrons raised concerns with their squadron commanders about flying with the complainant, and another pilot raised concerns under “crew resource management,” a set of protocols and procedures regarding flight safety. It said these expressions of concern were tantamount to refusals. It said that, where there was an acknowledgement from the CoC that the complainant was “temporarily suspended without prejudice” from duties in work, and therefore prevented from flying, it was not inaccurate to report he was grounded.

16. The publication also said that it had spoken to one captain who said stated that he had been made aware by a colleague of the complainant that there were concerns “about [the complainant’s] fitness to fly, […] due to all that was going on at the time and the state of [his] mental wellbeing". It said that this appeared to be a contrary position to the one given by the complainant’s commanding officer. It said another captain had said “openly refusing” to fly is “rather subjective.”

17. The publication did not accept there were any inaccuracies in its reporting of the alleged affairs. It said the inverted commas in the headline indicated it was making a claim rather than a statement of fact, and the first two paragraphs of the article referred to “claims” of affairs and “alleged betrayals”. It said the fact the complainant was under investigation was not in dispute.

18. The publication said whether the complainant stayed with the other pilot once or more often was not a significant point in the context of the article, although it said it was content to amend or remove this reference.

19. Regarding “the husband” mentioned in the article, the publication said it was unclear how the complainant could be privy to the motivations of a third party.

20. The publication said it was not disputed in the article that the complainant had made an initial disclosure regarding the alleged affairs, and that another aggrieved pilot lodged a complaint was not incompatible with the complainant’s position.

21. The publication did not accept the ranks of the other members of the army were significant in the context of the article as a whole, but said it was happy to amend these in the online version of the article.

22. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2 in respect of the photograph of the complainants. It said the image was taken from a public Facebook page. It argued there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in publicly published photographs. It also said the identity of the complainants’ was not private or a confidential matter, though she was not named in the article. The publication said the reporter’s approach to the complainant did not amount to a breach of his privacy, where the reporter had a professional obligation to contact the complainant for comment on the allegations in the article. The publication also said members of the armed forces who are subject to military or criminal investigations were routinely and fairly identified in the press.

23. The publication said where no clandestine cameras or subterfuge were used to create the article, Clause 10 was not engaged.

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 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*

i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

Mediated Outcome

24. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

25. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to print the following wording in its Corrections and Clarifications column:

“Following our 20 Jan report that Army Air Corps Capt Simon Boeg was 'grounded on safety grounds' amid claims that he had affairs with his crewmates' wives, we are happy to put Capt Boeg's and his commanding officer's position that he was suspended 'to allow the space for a thorough investigation' into the latter, of which he was cleared and has since returned to full duties.”

26. It also offered to remove the article and to apologise privately to Mrs Boeg.

27. The complainants said this would resolve the matter to their satisfaction.

28. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 22/02/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/07/2024