01075-25 Andrews v Sunday Mirror

Summary of Complaint

1. Jane Andrews and her brother, Jonathan Andrews, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Sunday Mirror breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Killer ex royal aide works at animal shelter / You’d never guess she’d been part of royal life”, published on 16 February 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on the front page, and continued on pages four and five - reported on the Ms Andrews’ criminal history and employment following her custodial sentence. It said she “now works at an animal hospital in the East Midlands” and that “snaps show Andrews, now 57, shuffling to work in a blue uniform”. The article included photographs of Ms Andrews in her work uniform and lanyard, and showed her outside her workplace. One of the photographs showed Ms Andrews in front of a car with a partially visible numberplate.

3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline “Sarah Ferguson's killer aide Jane Andrews' quiet new life – after lover's brutal cricket bat murder”. This version of the article was published on 15 February, and the photograph of the car referenced above showed the entire number plate.

4. Ms Andrews said that the article breached Clause 2 as it intruded into her entitlement for respect for her private and family life, home, and physical and mental health. She said the article had published identifying details about her workplace - which would reveal where she worked - as well as photographs of her, which revealed her appearance and which she had not consented to. She noted the animal hospital’s logo on her lanyard was visible, and her distinctive uniform was both pictured and described in the article. She said that identifying her workplace was concerning and had serious implications on her ability to maintain her employment.

5. She added she had been photographed in a private car park and that anyone with knowledge of the town could locate the hospital based on the pictures of the carpark. She also said the photograph showed her car’s numberplate, which was an additional intrusion which made her easier to locate. She said these intrusions were not in the public interest and there was no newsworthy event which justified such coverage.

6. Ms Andrews also said that news organisations treated women convicted of serious crimes with a degree of scrutiny that their male counterparts had not experienced. She said the sustained attention from the media affected her mental wellbeing and that her ability to carry out her day-to-day life had been impeded by such coverage, in breach of Clause 2.

7. Ms Andrews also said the publication had harassed her, in breach of Clause 3, as she believed she had been followed by two reporters working on behalf of the publication. She said CCTV footage captured by her employer as she arrived at work indicated that she had been followed by two cars - one of which had a photographer in the back. She said the cars waited outside the animal hospital to photograph her entering work. She said the use of unmarked cars to follow her was intrusive and unjustifiable. To support her complaint, she provided three CCTV images: two showed a silver car which appeared parked on the side of the road, and one photograph showed the silver car driving on a road and a black car parked on the side of the road. The CCTV images did not appear to show Ms Andrews.

8. Ms Andrews said the hospital manager had said that the CCTV footage - which she could not provide to IPSO, as it was now unavailable - showed her entering the staff car park, and a silver car following her down the road and into the next road. The hospital manager said the car then parked immediately opposite the staff car park, and believed this was where the photographs were taken from. Two other staff members also watched the CCTV and said they believed the silver car and black car were working together, because the black car was already parked when the silver car arrived and parked in front of it. The black car then drove alongside the silver car passenger’s window and then drove off.

9. Ms Andrews also said the journalist had attempted to speak to her at her home on 14 February. She said the reporter rang her doorbell shortly after she had returned from work. She said this amounted to persistent pursuit in breach of Clause 3.

10. Ms Andrews further said that her brother had been visited by a journalist. She said they rang his doorbell and knocked on his door repeatedly, as well as opening the letterbox and looking into the house which was intimidating in breach of Clause 3

11. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It first said the photographs had been taken by journalists working for an agency. It added that the photographs had been taken in an open public place, where Ms Andrews had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and did not reveal any private or personal information about her. It said the photographs only showed her likeness, which did not amount to private information in breach of Clause 2.

12. The publication said the article did not identify or locate the hospital, nor did it report that the car in the background of one of the photographs belonged to Ms Andrews. At any rate, it said the animal hospital had previously published photographs on a public Facebook account which showed Ms Andrews. Therefore, it did not consider Ms Andrews’ employment at the animal hospital was private – it had been put in the public domain by these photographs.

13. Turning to Clause 3, the publication said Ms Andrews did not become aware of the vehicle until the CCTV footage was reviewed, therefore the terms of Clause 3 were not engaged. However, it accepted that the CCTV photographs showed the photographer’s silver car, and that he had – on the occasion pictured in the CCTV screenshots - taken photographs of Ms Andrews, which were then published in the article. However, it said the black car was not driven by a journalist acting on its behalf, and that the agency had no knowledge of who it belonged to.

14. The publication said the photographs were taken in an open public place, and at no point did Ms Andrews request that she not be photographed. It did not accept that the photographer had followed Ms Andrews to work. It said the photographer became aware that Ms Andrews worked at the animal hospital, and therefore travelled to the premises – it had not followed Ms Andrews from her home.

15. The publication said that the reporter had visited Ms Andrews’ property once to ask if she would like to comment on the new TV drama about her life. It said the reporter introduced himself after she had answered the door, she said she didn’t wish to comment, and the reporter had then left. It said no reporter acting on its behalf approached the Mr Andrews.

16. Ms Andrews said the article inferred that the car shown in the article belonged to her, even if it did not outright state this. She added that she was not aware at the that she was being photographed, and if she had been she would have asked the photographer to desist from photographing her. She added that she consistently declined to appear in any photograph wearing her uniform or to be photographed in a manner that would connect her to her place of work. She said the only publicly visible photograph of her on the animal hospital’s Facebook page was one of a large Christmas party from 2022 where she was at the back with only her head visible.

17. The publication said the photographs included in the article were taken in a public place, visible to any member of the public walking by. It said Google Maps demonstrated that the carpark was accessible to the public via an open entrance.

18. The publication provided two photographs of Ms Andrews, which were publicly available on the hospital’s Facebook page. The photograph portraying the large Christmas party was captioned "We had our staff Christmas party...". It said the other photograph is had provided appeared to be of a Breast Cancer Awareness day in which Ms Andrews was stood alongside those in the uniform – which indicated where she worked.

19. Ms Andrews said that the fact that the private car park was accessible from the street did not entitle photographers to intrude or photograph her without her consent or knowledge. She said no request to desist was made since the photographs were taken clandestinely without her permission and in a private carpark.

20. Ms Andrews said she was not aware that the Breast Cancer Awareness event photograph was on Facebook but noted she was one of many who were not identified by name. She said the photograph did not identify her as an employee, and that she was in a group which included many people who were not employed by the hospital.

21. The publication said the photographs were not taken clandestinely as Ms Andrews suggested.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Findings of the Committee

22. The Committee first considered Ms Andrews concerns, framed under Clause 2, regarding the photographs showing her outside her workplace. It noted that, while Ms Andrews considered the photographs had been taken of her while she was in a private car park, she did not dispute that she was visible to members of the public from the street whilst she was standing in this car park. The photographs, therefore, did not show anything which would not have been visible to members of the public passing by.

23. The Committee further noted that, while Ms Andrews considered her place of work to be private, an individual’s job or place of work is not typically considered to be information about someone’s private and family life, and publishing it would not generally constitute an intrusion into someone’s privacy. The publication had also been able to demonstrate that Ms Andrews had been pictured on the animal hospital’s public Facebook page, and therefore her association with the organisation was in the public domain and not private. At any rate, the article did not identify the name of the animal hospital.

24. Ms Andrews also considered that the Code had been breached because it showed her car’s numberplate. The Committee noted that the article did not report that this was Ms Andrews’ car, and the picture did not indicate this was the case – for example, she was not shown exiting the car. In any event, the Committee noted that a numberplate is placed on the outside of a car and is visible to passersby; a numberplate, in and of itself, would not constitute personal information in such circumstances. The Committee did not, therefore, consider photographing Ms Andrews, and the subsequent publication of those photographs, breached the terms of Clause 2.

25. The Committee next considered Ms Andrews’ broader concern about the media treating women who had committed crimes differently to men and that the sustained attention was affecting her day-to-day life. First, the Committee noted that it could only consider concerns about a specific newspaper’s conduct and published material, rather than concerns about news coverage in general. However, the Committee did note that newspapers are entitled to select which information they publish provided they do not breach the Code. The newspaper was entitled to report on the complainant following her custodial sentence – and doing so did not, in and of itself, represent an intrusion into Ms Andrews’ private and family life. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

26. The Committee then considered Ms Andrews’ concerns that she had been followed by two journalists by car. The Committee first noted that the publication had confirmed that the reporter in the silver car was working on behalf of the publication - however it had no knowledge of the black car and there was no information definitively linking the black car to the publication. Therefore, the Committee only considered the conduct of the reporter in the silver car, given there was no evidence that the person in the black car was acting on behalf of the publication.

27. The Committee noted that Ms Andrews only became aware of the journalist’s activity due to CCTV footage, and she had not noticed the car at any other location. Therefore, the Committee considered that, given she was unaware that the alleged behaviour was occurring at the time, it was unlikely she had felt intimidated or harassed on her way to work. The Committee also noted that Ms Andrews had not said that she had seen a car following her on her way to work, and this allegation was based only on other people’s perception of the CCTV footage outside of the hospital – which was not made available to the Committee, and at any rate would not have shown whether the car had followed Ms Andrews from her home.

28. The Committee also noted that journalists are entitled to attend individuals’ places of work or homes for comment and to take photographs, and the act of attending Ms Andrews’ workplace to photograph her was not, in and of itself, harassment. Given this, and where there was no evidence before the Committee which indicated that Ms Andrews had been followed, there was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.

29. The Committee next considered Ms Andrews’ concern that the interaction with the journalist at her home breached Clause 3. It noted that the journalist had approached Ms Andrews for comment, and it was not in dispute that – when she had declined to give a comment - he had left the premises. Where the journalist appeared to leave when Ms Andrews declined to comment, the Committee did not consider that the journalist had engaged in persistent pursuit, or ignored a request to desist from Ms Andrews. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.

30. Finally, the Committee considered the interaction between Mr Andrews and the individual who he believed was a journalist. The Committee noted that the publication had said that no journalist working on its behalf approached Mr Andrews. The complainant had also not provided any information to indicate that the person worked for the publication. Given that there was no indication that this individual was acting on behalf of the newspaper – or indeed, that they were a journalist – the Committee did not consider that the terms of Clause 2 had been breached.

Conclusions

31. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

32. N/A

Date complaint received: 22/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 07/10/2025