Ruling

01232-24 Worgan v Wales on Sunday

  • Complaint Summary

    Andrea Worgan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Wales on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “YOUNG CARER TURNING LIFE AROUND WITH COLLEGE'S HELP”, published on 17 March 2024.

    • Published date

      17th October 2024

    • Outcome

      No breach - after investigation

    • Code provisions

      1 Accuracy, 2 Privacy, 6 Children

Summary of Complaint

1. Andrea Worgan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Wales on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “YOUNG CARER TURNING LIFE AROUND WITH COLLEGE'S HELP”, published on 17 March 2024.

2. The article reported on the educational and life experiences of a woman, and how she had “got back on track” after returning to college. It reported that the woman “was just six when she became a young carer for her four-year-old brother”. It included direct quotes from the woman:

“’I didn’t choose to become a young carer, but complications in my family life meant I was leant on for support. I tried my best to help look after my siblings, especially my youngest brother, by cooking food, packing lunches, and ensuring clothes were clean. I had a lot of responsibility to deal with at home.’”

3. The article also quoted the woman as follows:

“I became a carer for my younger brother when he was four and I was six’, she said. ‘My mum had just had a newborn and my dad was away a lot. I would get him dressed every morning and get him food. I did go to primary school and there were lots of aunties to walk to school with, but it was a struggle. I was expelled from school aged 12 and 14 and me and my brother ended up in care.”

4. The article also reported details about the woman’s living arrangements – specifically, that she lived with her mother and another individual – and that “[t]he brother she was a young carer for is 17 and is now going to college.”

5. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “’I was a carer age six, was expelled from school at 12 and smoking cannabis at 13, then I accepted help’”. It also included a sub-headline which read, in part: “[The woman] was using drugs, drinking and stealing from her gran by the time she was 13”. This version of the article included the town where the young woman lived; the article was amended on 18 March 2024 – one day after its initial publication – to remove the town and the reference to who the woman lived with. On 20 March 2024, it was again amended to remove a photograph caption which included this information.

6. On the day after the article’s publication, a family member of the woman contacted the newspaper to make it aware of information he considered to be inaccurate. He said that the young woman did not care for young children, cook, or clean clothes. He said that she “helped out”, but only by performing age-appropriate tasks. He also requested that the article be edited to remove the references to the woman’s hometown and who she lived with. He said that this information should be removed due to an ongoing police investigation. He also said that he had spoken to the college, who had indicated that it was unhappy with the article; he provided a press release, circulated on behalf of the college, which he said was what he had agreed should be published.

7. The publication responded on the same date, and asked for details of the police investigation so that it could respond accordingly. The woman’s family member told the publication that the police had told him he could not tell them details, but later confirmed the nature of the charges and that two people had been bailed in relation to these charges. The publication, after clarifying with the family member who the charges affected, agreed to remove the details about the woman’s hometown and who she lived with from the article. However, it noted that the woman’s hometown was referenced in the college’s press release.

8. The complainant – the woman’s mother – complained that the article breached Clause 1 because she disputed that her daughter had been a “carer”, or that she had carried out the tasks described in the article. She also said that she had not met her partner, referenced in the article as her daughter’s “dad”, until her daughter was seven and her younger sister was born when she was eight – not when she was six. She also said that her daughter did not walk to school with “aunties”; they walked to school together. She said that she had been led to believe that the article, would be the same as the college’s story, but that this was not the case. The press release included the following:

“Young Carer turns life around thanks to second chance with valleys college

A young carer who spent her teen years in and out of education before getting a second chance thanks to the support of a Welsh college is looking forward to starting afresh and is urging other young people with caring duties to reach out for the help they need to succeed.

[The woman, from named town] grew up caring for her four younger siblings and struggled to balance her studies with her caring role and general life as a young person, leading to a tumultuous relationship with education.

[…]

[The woman] said: ‘[…] I didn’t choose to become a young carer, but complications in my family life meant I was leant on for support. I tried my best to help look after my siblings, especially my youngest brother, by cooking food, packing lunches and ensuring clothes were clean. I had a lot of responsibility to deal with at home and it made me push back in other areas of my life, including education.’”

9. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 2 because it included inaccurate statements. She also said that it reported where she lived, as the article stated her daughter lived with her and reported the town where they both lived.

10. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 6 as it referenced her son. She said that he should not have been referenced, for legal reasons, and that he was sixteen years old – not seventeen, as reported by the article - and in education. She said that the article painted a bad picture of her family and this also breached the Clause.

11. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It first said that the complainant’s daughter was an adult, and entitled to share her experience, and the article was clearly presented as her story. Further to this, it said that, while the complainant had said that the article was inaccurate to describe her daughter as a “young carer”, this was precisely how she had been described in the College press release, which the complainant had said she was satisfied with. It also noted that the press release included the following:

“I didn’t choose to become a young carer, but complications in my family life meant I was leant on for support. I tried my best to help look after my siblings, especially my youngest brother, by cooking food, packing lunches and ensuring clothes were clean. I had a lot of responsibility to deal with at home and it made me push back in other areas of my life, including education.”

12. Given that, according to the publication, the college press release – which the complainant had expressed satisfaction with, and which a relative had said he had agreed to be published - did not materially differ from its own report, it did not accept that the article was inaccurate. It said, at any rate, that it did not require consent or permission from the complainant to report the story, given that her daughter was an adult.

13. The publication said that the company that had circulated the press release on behalf of the college had been in touch after the article’s publication, expressing its satisfaction with the article. It provided the email which showed this.

14. The publication also provided a text message which it said had been sent from the complainant’s daughter to the reporter. This text message also expressed satisfaction with the article.

15. While the complainant had said that her son should not have been referenced in the article, the publication noted that he was not named within the article. It also said it would be helpful if the complainant could provide a copy of any documents which she relied upon in support of her complaint that her son should not have been referenced.

16. The complainant declined to share any documents with the publication, as she considered them to be private. She said that, while her son was not named in the article, both she and her son were identifiable; she knew this was the case as both she and her son had received messages about the article. She also said it was inaccurate to report that her daughter had been expelled from school at the age of 12; had smoked cannabis at the age of 13; had stolen from her grandmother; that she was drinking by the time she was 13; and that she was expelled. She said these parts of the article did not appear in the College’s press release and were therefore inaccurate.

17. The publication said that these parts of the article were based on information provided by the complainant’s daughter. To support its position on this point, it provided notes taken during its reporters interview with the complainant’s daughter. These notes included the following excerpts:

• “I became a carer at six or seven”.

• “I started caring for my siblings. Giving food to them and getting them dressed and making them snacks. I was six, my brother was four”.

• “I would wake up and get him dressed and get him food and was very very [sic] and I matured fast”.

• “My mum was busy with a new born. At the time my mum had just had a new born.”

• “My mum took us to school for a long time then it was just down the path and I always walked with friends to school.”

• “I was in year 7 when taken into care for one and a half years.”

• “From age 13 I lived with my nan.”

• “6 to nearly 13 I was a young carer.”

• “I was expelled from [named school] half way through (year 7)”

• “Aged 12 I was first taken into care. The school was aware. I stayed with one family and I loved them.”

• “I was a defiant teenager. I grew up not trusting people and got moved from my mum's to care and to my nan's.”

• “I was pinching her fags and pinching her money to buy drink.”

• “I was smoking from 13 to 14 (cannabis).”

• “We are all so close now. i live with my mum…”

• “My brother is doing really, really well. He is going to college and is 17 now.”

18. The publication accepted that the notes did not include a reference to the complainant walking to school with aunties, though it said the reporter had indicated that the word “aunties” had been used. It said it would be happy to amend the word “aunties” to “friends” to better reflect the notes.

19. The publication also said there was no information in the article about the complainant or her son which was private, and there was therefore no breach of Clause 2.

20. The complainant said that her daughter should not have been interviewed without supervision, and the fact that her daughter may have told the publication inaccurate information did not mean that they were allowed to publish it.

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 6 (Children)*

i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.

ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the school authorities.

iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.

iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.

v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life.

Findings of the Committee

21. The Committee understood that there was a central dispute of fact in the complaint, between the complainant’s recollection of her daughter’s childhood and upbringing, and the version which appeared in the article. The Committee noted that it was not in a position to make a finding of fact about the specific details of the woman’s upbringing, or to resolve the discrepancy between the two accounts. Its role was to decide whether the newspaper, in reporting the young woman’s account, had done so in a way that accorded with the terms of the Editors’ Code.

22. The press release circulated on behalf of the college, and which partly acted as the basis for the article, referred to the complainant’s daughter as a “young carer” who “look[ed] after her younger siblings […] by cooking food, packing lunches and ensuring clothes were clean”. Contemporaneous notes from an interview with the woman also included several references to the woman acting as a carer during her childhood, with reference to specific tasks she had conducted, including giving her siblings food. Given that the reference to the woman being a carer and a description of the specific tasks she said she had undertaken had been taken from a press release, and was further supported by contemporaneous notes of an interview with the woman, the Committee considered that the newspaper had taken care over the accuracy of this claim, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

23. The complainant and a relative had both expressed satisfaction with the press release, and the relative had indicated that he had agreed to its publication. In addition, the relative had noted in direct correspondence with the publication that the woman had “helped out”, albeit in an age-appropriate manner. The Committee also noted that the complainant’s daughter had expressed satisfaction with the article after its publication, and did not appear to have expressed concern that it was inaccurate. The Committee understood the complainant’s position that her daughter had not acted as a carer. However, given it was not in dispute that the daughter and her college had referred to her in such terms, and the complainant did not appear to dispute the college’s description of her daughter in such terms, the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

24. The complainant had expressed concern that the article inaccurately reported the chronology of her daughter’s childhood, as it said she had become a carer when she was six and the complainant was caring for a newborn – but the child in question had been born when the woman was eight. The Committee noted that, in the notes provided by the publication, a reference to the complainant’s daughter having become a carer at the age of six was followed by a reference to the birth of a younger sibling: “My mum was busy with a new born. At the time my mum had just had a new born.” Given the reference to the newborn immediately followed the reference to the daughter having caring responsibilities at the age of six, the Committee considered that the publication had demonstrated that it had taken care over the accuracy of the article’s chronology, where the article’s timeline mirrored the timeline given by the notes. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

25. The Committee understood that the allegedly inaccurate timeline was a significant matter to the complainant. However, when considering whether something is significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted, it is sometimes necessary to take several factors into account, such as – for example - the prominence of the allegedly inaccurate claim within the article itself, and to what extent it supports the overall narrative of the article. In this case, the Committee did not consider that this alleged inaccuracy in the chronology of the daughter’s childhood would be significantly inaccurate: the point being made by the article was that, from a young age, the daughter considered that she had taken on caring responsibilities. Whether this was prompted by the birth of a younger sibling was not significant in such a context, particularly in circumstances where it did not appear to be in dispute that the daughter had linked her alleged caring responsibilities with the birth of her sibling. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

26. The Committee next considered whether the article breached Clause 1 by reporting that the complainant’s daughter had said that “there were lots of aunties to walk to school with”. The complainant said this was inaccurate as she walked her daughter to school. The Committee noted that neither the contemporaneous notes nor the press release from the college supported this claim – the notes said: “My mum took us to school for a long time then it was just down the path and I always walked with friends to school.” However, the Committee also noted that the article did not claim that the complainant did not walk her daughter to school, or that only “aunties” walked with her; rather, it just reported that there were “lots of aunties” who she could walk to school with. In such circumstances, although the notes did not tally with the article, the Committee did not consider that there were sufficient grounds to establish that the article was inaccurate on this point. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1.

27. The complainant had said that the article contained further inaccuracies, as it included references which did not appear in the press release: that the complainant’s daughter had been expelled from school at the age of 12; had smoked cannabis at the age of 13; had stolen from her grandmother; and that she was drinking by the time she was 13. However, the publication had been able to provide notes from an interview with the complainant’s daughter, which included references to support these claims, and the complainant did not appear to dispute that her daughter had said this during the interview. In such circumstances, and where the article reported on comments made by the daughter, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

28. Clause 2 relates to concerns that an individual’s private and family life has been intruded upon without justification, rather than concerns over the publication of inaccurate information. Therefore, the complainant’s concerns on this point did not represent a breach of Clause 2.

29. The complainant had also expressed concerns, framed under Clause 2, that the article included her hometown, given it reported the town in which her daughter lived and that she lived with the complainant. When considering complaints made under Clause 2, the Code notes that account will be taken of the extent the material complained of is in the public domain. Therefore, the first consideration for the Committee was whether this information – the daughter’s hometown, and the fact that she lived with her mother – was in the public domain.

30. The college’s press release, which as well as being circulated to the media appeared in the college’s own web-page, included the town where the complainant’s daughter lived. However, it did not refer to the fact that she shared a home with the complainant. Therefore, the fact that the complainant lived in the town did not appear to be in the public domain. Given this, the Committee next considered whether this was information over which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

31. The Committee noted that the article did not give the complainant’s precise address. Rather, it gave the name of a town, where generally thousands of people would be resident. The Committee further noted that, while the complainant and a relative had indicated that this information should be kept private due to legal proceedings, the complainant had declined to provide the publication with documents outlining the nature of the legal proceedings in question and therefore the Committee could not rely on it when making its decision. Taking these factors into account, the Committee did not consider that the publication had intruded into the complainant’s family and private life by referring to the fact that she lived with her daughter and the town where they both lived. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 2.

32. Clause 6 does not state that children should not be referenced in news coverage. Rather, the Clause provides additional protections for children, acknowledging both that they will generally be in a more vulnerable position than adults while balancing the right of the press to report on stories which may relate to, or involve, children.

33. Only one sub-Clause of Clause 6 was engaged by the complainant’s concerns: Clause 6 (i), which states that all pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion. Given that the complainant’s son was sixteen; had not been approached at school; and the article did not relate to the fame or notoriety of his parent, the remainder of the sub-Clauses were not engaged.

34. While the complainant had expressed concern that her son had been referenced in the article, she did not allege that this had led to any intrusion into his life or schooling. The Committee further noted that the complainant’s son was not named or pictured in the article and that – although the circumstances of his upbringing had been referred to – it did not appear that this had directly led to any intrusion, particularly in light of the fact that some of these details also appeared in the college’s press release. In addition, while the Committee understood that the complainant was concerned that the article as a whole painted a negative picture of her family unit, this did not – in the Committee’s view – demonstrate that there had been an intrusion into the son’s schooling, or that any such intrusion had been unnecessary. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 6.

Conclusions

35. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

36. N/A


Date complaint received: 20/03/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 01/10/2024