00878-25 Garden v Helensburgh Advertiser

Summary of Complaint

1. Kelly Garden complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Helensburgh Advertiser breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Woman claims her hair was pulled out by ex's new wife”, published on 6 March 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on the front page of the newspaper, before continuing on page 5 - reported on a trial in which the complainant was the defendant. It reported that “a court heard” the complainant “pushed her way into” a flat owned by the victim in the case, and “went on trial […] accused of assault and threatening and abusive behaviour, including shouting, swearing, acting in an aggressive manner, and kicking a door, causing damage.”

3. The article then gave further details, reporting that when the victim “opened the door, Garden pushed the door in and began shouting abuse. [The victim] told the court: ‘She said: “Stay away from my f*****g man.”’” Towards the end of the article, it reported that the complainant “admitted to acting in an aggressive manner, banging on the door and struggling with [the victim]. The Crown accepted she was not guilty of assault.”

4. The article also appeared online, in substantively the same format, under the headline “Helensburgh woman faced trial for assault of husband’s ex.” This version of the article was published on 7 March 2025.

5. The complainant first contacted the newspaper by phone on the 6 March, expressing her concern that the article had been published on the front-page of the newspaper. She then contacted the publication again via email on 7 March and told it the article was inaccurate. She said she had been found not guilty of the assault charge against her, yet the article reported that she had “pushed her way into” the victim’s flat – which she said she hadn’t done. She said she had only pleaded guilty to a breach of the peace, which related to an allegation she had shouted and banged on the door. She said she had not been found guilty of attacking anyone or entering a flat.

6. The publication responded to the complainant on the same day. It said it had not wished to cause the complainant distress, but that reporting on court cases is a core element of local journalism and it had a duty to do so. On the specific point raised by the complainant, it said that – during the trial – the victim had alleged that the complainant pushed into the flat. As this was not corroborated by the second witness, the court accepted the complainant’s not guilty plea on this point. It said this was clearly stated in the article. It further noted that the court had not placed any restrictions on what could be reported on the trial, and neither court official nor the sheriff had told the press not to name the complainant or anyone else involved in the case.

7. The complainant then contacted IPSO to complain. She said that the article breached Clause 1, for the reasons she had already set out to the publication. She added that the manner in which the article was written made it appear as if she had forced her way into the property and assaulted the other woman.

8. To support her position, the complainant provided a copy of her conviction report. This set out that she had been convicted of “behav[ing] in a threatening or abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm in that [she] did act in an aggressive manner and did bang on a door there and struggle with REDACTED”.

9. She also said that she did not say “stay away from my f*****g man” during the incident. She said this was a Scottish term, and she would not have said this – rather, as she was English, she would have said “stay away from my husband”. The complainant accepted, however, that the witness had claimed she’d said this.

10. The complainant also expressed concern at how prominent the reporting of her case was, given it appeared in the front-page of the newspaper. She said the newspaper had sensationalised the story. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2, as it named her.

11. On 10 April – nine days after being made aware of the complaint – the newspaper had added the following wording to the online article as a footnote:

“CLARIFICATION: A previous version of this article stated that Kelly Garden ‘pushed her way’ into the flat. She did not plead guilty to this, and so this has been amended to read that she ‘entered’ the flat.”

12. The newspaper said it would also be happy to publish a clarification in print, but it wanted to wait until the complainant or IPSO accepted its proposed wording – as if the wording was incorrect or insufficient, it could not update the print clarification in the same manner it could the online version. It said that it would publish any clarification on page 2 of its newspaper.

13. The newspaper also supplied IPSO with its reporter’s notes from the case, which it said supported its position that the article was a fair and accurate report of what was heard in court. These notes contained the following:

Witness: My door was then [WITNESS SAYS "KICKED" THEN "PUSHED"] in, broke the chain. It had me on the floor and Kelly Garden entered my flat.

14. When it provided the notes, the publication explained that the wording within the square parentheses (“WITNESS SAYS "KICKED" THEN "PUSHED”) reflected the fact that the witness first said “kicked” before quickly saying “pushed” instead.

15. The complainant said the witness had said, during court proceedings, that she had kicked the door in. However, as a second witness did not corroborate this - and said she’d knocked on the door – the assault charge was dropped. She also said the correction itself was incorrect, as she did not enter the flat during the incident.

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.

Findings of the Committee

16. The Committee first noted that neither party appeared to dispute that it had been heard in court that the complainant entered the victim’s flat by kicking or pushing her way in. This was also supported by the newspaper’s contemporaneous notes, which referenced a witness having claimed that the complainant “kicked” or “pushed” a door, and having “entered [the] flat” It also noted that the article made clear what the complainant had been charged with – “assault and threatening and abusive behaviour, including shouting, swearing, acting in an aggressive manner, and kicking a door, causing damage” – and that she ultimately “admitted to acting in an aggressive manner, banging on a door and struggling”, and it was accepted she was not guilty of assault.

17. Given the above, the Committee did not consider that the article gave the inaccurate or misleading impression that the court had found that she had pushed her way into the flat, or that she had been found guilty of assault in relation to this. It made clear that the claim had been “heard” in court – which it had – and that the complainant, ultimately, was not found guilty of any charges relating to such an allegation. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the article reported on the court proceedings in a manner which was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

18. The Committee understood the complainant disputed that she had entered the flat at all during the incident. However, it noted that the newspaper’s role was to accurately report on what had been heard during the court case. Given the newspaper had been able to provide notes saying it had been heard that the complainant “entered” the flat, the Committee was satisfied that the article was not inaccurate on this point.

19. While the Committee did not consider the article inaccurate or misleading on these points, it welcomed the steps the publication had taken to resolve the complaint and to clarify the matter.

20. As noted above, newspapers are responsible for accurately reporting what has been heard in court; they are not responsible for ensuring that what is heard in court is accurate, nor are they responsible for the accuracy of claims made by witnesses in evidence or witness statements.

21. While the complainant disputed that she had said “stay away from my f*****g man”, it was not in dispute that a witness had made this claim during her evidence. It was not inaccurate for the newspaper to report this and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

22. The complainant had also expressed concerns that the coverage of her case was unduly prominent and had been sensationalised. The Code does not dictate where articles should and shouldn’t appear, and the newspaper was entitled to publish the article on its front-page as it saw fit. In addition, provided articles do not otherwise breach the Code, their presentation – including whether they are presented in a sensational manner – is not something which IPSO regulates. There was no breach of Clause 1 on either of these points.

23. The Committee next turned to Clause 2. It noted that, unless the court puts restrictions on reporting, newspapers are allowed to publish information that has been made public in open court. In such circumstances, the newspaper did not breach Clause 2 by publishing the complainant’s name in connection with the case.

Conclusions

24. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

25. N/A

Date complaint received: 06/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/08/2025