01325-24 Raja v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Zulfiqar Raja complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Maths teacher is sacked after sending 50 emails to three female pupils including one who he told 'you're an angel', tribunal hears”, published on 21 December 2023.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on an employment tribunal hearing into the complainant’s dismissal from his role as a teacher. Its sub-headline read: “Zulfiqar Rajagave provided his personal mobile number and gifts to a student [sic]”. The article opened with the following:

“A maths teacher was sacked after sending 50 emails to three female pupils including one who he told 'you're an angel', an employment tribunal heard. Zulfiqar Raja, who started working at [a named school], in November 2019, told the girl that he wanted to 'touch her leg' and 'loved her', gifting her poems and chocolate, before showing her 'special treatment' by sharing a maths assessment ahead of a test. After she complained, an investigation found the teacher who taught children from Years 7-11 had emailed three students dozens of times, out of hours, sometimes as late as 11.30pm. Mr Raja was sacked in October last year for gross misconduct after the school found he had given out his personal mobile phone number”.

3. The article went on to report that: “In June 2022, [the complainant] emailed a maths test paper to a student, referred to only as Student A. Two days later, he sent her his personal mobile phone number, after which Student A made a complaint to the pastoral team about him sending her the test, buying her a book as a gift and gone to touch her on the leg”. Subsequently, the article reported that, “[i]n July 2022, Student A raised a formal complaint about Mr Raja – claiming that despite not being her teacher, he had sent her emails and gifted her poems and presents such as pens and chocolate. She said he told her her [sic] 'loved her' and wanted to 'touch her leg' as well as emailing her a maths test assessment with instructions not to tell anyone”.

4. The article also said: “As matters were investigated and Mr Raja was told to stay away from Student A, the hearing was told he did not admit to giving her his personal mobile number. When Student A voiced a fresh concern that he had given his number, he was suspended on full pay, alleged to have 'attempted to form an inappropriate relationship and had breached the teacher standards'. In October 2022, he was dismissed for 'gross misconduct', before Mr Raja started legal proceedings”.

5. The article included a number of comments made by the judge who presided over the complainant’s employment tribunal. It reported:

“Dismissing his claim of unfair dismissal, Employment Judge [a named judge] said his familiar tone with students was a 'legitimate cause for concern'. 'On June 30, 2022 [Mr Raja] emailed student C again and said: 'I really miss you a lot.' [He] went on to suggest that they would 'walk to school together,' [the judge] said. 'This was an example of the claimant using informal language, which could have been misinterpreted as overfamiliar by student C’. The judge concluded the school were 'entitled' to find Mr Raja had 'behaved unprofessionally and crossed the boundary' in a student-teacher relationship with Student A.

[The judge] continued: 'There were a number of emails available to [the school] which were sent to the students A, B and C outside of school hours. For example, he sent an email to student C at 11.22pm on May 6, 2022. Earlier that day the [complainant] had referred to student C in the following terms 'you are such a lovely girl'.On March 30, 2022, [Mr Raja] sent an email to student A out of hours, at 7..15pm in which he said 'you're an angel'.' Mr Raja accepted he hadn't given anyone else the maths test, like he had Student A, and the tribunal said this was 'giving her special treatment'.

[….]

‘Taking the above matters into consideration, there was evidence available to [the school] to conclude that his conduct had the potential to bring [the school] into disrepute,' [the judge] continued. 'Student A's mother had complained about [Mr Raja’s] conduct towards her daughter. 'There was therefore the risk that the trust's reputation was brought into disrepute’.”

6. The article also included an image which showed a young girl sitting in a darkened room, covering her face. The caption read: “Student A raised a formal complaint about Mr Raja - claiming that despite not being her teacher, he had sent her emails and gifted her poems and presents (Pictured: stock photo)”. The image was also watermarked with the name of a stock photo company. 

7. The complainant said that the article included numerous inaccuracies, in breach of Clause 1. Firstly, he stated that the article reported – as fact – that he told Student A he wanted to touch her leg, and that he loved her. He stated that these were unproven allegations and did not form part of the school’s case against him.

8. Secondly, the complainant said that the article inaccurately reported that Student A and their mother made “formal complaints” against him, and that he was told to stay away from Student A. He said this was not true, the school had confirmed this during disciplinary proceedings, and that he had an email from the school’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) which confirmed that Student A and her mother had no concerns about him.

9. The complainant supplied IPSO with the email in question. Dated 24 June, part of the email from the DSL stated:

“I confirmed that having spoken to the specific student she is not concerned or worried and had written her account following a telephone call home that you made on Tuesday 14thJune, to advise her you had emailed her answers for a test.

You confirmed this was to enable her to check her answers, and highlight any areas for revision, ahead of an upcoming assessment.”

10. The complainant then stated that the article implied, in a misleading way, that he had given Student A the same assessment paper she was going to take, which was false. He also said the article claimed he told the student “not to tell anyone” when he gave her the paper – he said this was a false accusation which was not upheld during disciplinary proceedings.

11. The complainant also said that the article was misleading in how it portrayed his giving Student A chocolate and gifts – he said he gave many students “small tokens and sweets as did many teachers”, and that the school were aware of this. The complainant later added that the letter from the school’s DSL also mentioned his giving student’s gifts, and made clear that the school were not concerned about it. Part of the email from the DSL stated:

“you have previously given chocolate/biscuits/stationary to a number of students as a reward or if they seemed upset/down”.

12. The complainant said that the nature of his contact with Student C had been presented in a distorted manner – he said there was always a reason he had email contact with any student outside of school hours, which was if a student emailed him with work or wellbeing concerns. He also stated that the article was misleading to report he had sent “50 emails” as it did not refer to the time period during which these emails had been sent.

13. Finally, the complainant stated that the article as a whole was sensationalist. In particular, he stated that the image of young girl in a darkened room intentionally and inaccurately portrayed him as “someone who has targeted a helpless child”. 

14. To support of his position, the complainant supplied IPSO with the Employment Tribunal judgment and the Appeal Tribunal judgment. He said that the appeal judge accepted that the original judgment accepted claims which did not ultimately form part of his dismissal.

15. On 10 April, IPSO made the publication aware of the complainant’s concerns. On 8 May, the publication contacted the complainant. It accepted the article was inaccurate to report, as fact, that the complainant “told the girl that he wanted to 'touch her leg'”. While this had been alleged, the publication accepted that the tribunal had not made a finding as to whether this occurred – rather, its finding was limited to whether the school were right to dismiss the complainant. It offered to amend the article to make clear this was an allegation, to add a footnote correction to the article recording this change, and publish a standalone correction on its news page. It proposed the following wording for the footnote correction:

“A previous version of this article reported that Zulfiqar Raja told a student that he wanted to ‘touch her leg’. In fact, although the student did allege that Mr Zulfiqar did this, the tribunal made no finding on whether this actually happened.”

16. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code on the remainder of the alleged inaccuracies. It stated, firstly, that the article was a report on the complainant’s tribunal – while it noted he may disagree with parts of the tribunal’s decision, it had the right to report on its findings, and it had done so accurately.

17. The publication stated that the article was accurate to report that Student A and their mother had made complaints against the complainant, and that the complainant had been told to “stay away” from Student A. It referred to paragraphs 28, 29 and 68 of the judgment, which read:

“28. On 1 July 2022 student A raised a formal complaint about the claimant. The broad nature of the concerns was that the claimant sent emails, even though he wasn’t her teacher and that he provided presents such as poems, pens and chocolate. Student A said the claimant told he loved her and wanted to touch her leg. Student A also said that the claimant had emailed a maths test assessment and told her not to tell anyone.

29. matter was initially discussed with the claimant by [a named individual], school principal. At that time the claimant was told to stay away from student A.”

[…]

68. […] Student A’s mother had complained about the claimant’s conduct towards her daughter”.

18. The publication said it had accurately reported on the complainant passing Student A a copy of an assessment paper. It again referred to the judgment, and stated that it had been found that this action contributed to the school’s decision to dismiss the complainant. The judgement read:

“36. The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct on 12 October 2022. I find as a fact that the reason [a named individual] dismissed the claimant was as follows:

[…]

d. Providing a maths paper to student A on 12 June 2022, ahead of her maths test and thus giving her an unfair advantage.”

19. In addition to this, the publication said that the article was not inaccurate or misleading to omit to mention that the complainant did not give Student A the same assessment paper she was going to sit. It said that the tribunal found this did not make any difference to the gross misconduct for which he was dismissed: the tribunal noted that he was not Student A’s teacher; he had not told Student A’s teacher that he was providing Student A a test; there was a similarity between the test provided and the test Student A was sitting; and the complainant accepted he had not given any other student the test. The publication referred to paragraphs 64-66 of the Tribunal judgement, which read:

64. The claimant accepted he had provided student A with a copy of a maths paper, by email, on 12 June 2022. A copy of the email was available to [a named individual] and the claimant accepted he had done so.

65. It wasn’t the actual maths paper that student A was sitting. Nonetheless, there were a number of concerns raised by the approach the claimant had taken. He was not student A’s maths teacher. He had not told student A’s maths teacher that he was providing a copy of the test. There was a similarity between the test provided (it was a lower maths test) and the test that student A was sitting (the higher maths test). Crucially, the claimant accepted that he hadn’t given any other student the test.

66. [A named individual] was entitled to conclude that not only did this conduct actually place student A at an advantage, but it also risked student A misinterpreting the claimant’s intentions because he was in effect giving her special treatment.

20. The publication did not accept that the article reported that the complainant had given Student A gifts in a misleading manner: he had admitted he had done this. Further, it did not accept that the article omitting the fact that he given other students gifts, or that many teachers did this, or that the school were aware was misleading; this was not mentioned in the tribunal proceedings, which it had accurately reported.

21. The publication did not accept that the article was misleading in its reporting of the complainant’s email exchanges with students. It stated that the tribunal found that the complainant’s emails to Student C contributed to the school’s decision to dismiss him – paragraph 36 of the judgement stated:

36. The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct on 12 October 2022. I find as a fact that the reason [a named individual] dismissed the claimant was as follows:

[…]

b. The familiar tone that the claimant continued to take in emails to students and the approach the claimant took to interacting with student A after he had been told to take a more professional approach by Sarah Bloomer on 17 June 2022.

c. The volume of email contact that the claimant had with three students, students A, B and C, outside of school hours.

22. It also stated that omitting to report the time period over which the 50 emails were sent did not make the article inaccurate or misleading, as the tribunal did not find that this was relevant to its decision.

23. Finally, the publication did not accept that the article’s use of the image was misleading. It stated that the image was “clearly labelled” as a stock image, and was “perfectly appropriate and not misleading in any way”, given that the tribunal had found that “a key part of the complainant’s gross misconduct involved his behaviour towards an upset child”.

24. In response, the complainant maintained that the article breached the Code. He stated that the publication had reported a “damaging view of the situation” and had no intention of reporting on the tribunal’s unfair dismissal finding.

25. On 18 August, during IPSO’s investigation, the publication noted that – alongside the point regarding whether the complainant had touched Student A’s leg – the tribunal had also not made a finding as to whether he had told Student A he “loved her”. It stated that it was happy to amend the article to make clear that this was only an allegation, and proposed the following wording for a footnote correction:

“A previous version of this article reported that Zulfiqar Raja told a student that he wanted to ‘touch her leg’ and that ‘he loved her’. In fact, although the student did allege that Mr Zulfiqar did this, the tribunal made no finding on whether this actually happened.”

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

26. The Committee began by considering the complainant’s concerns that the article reported – as fact – that he had told Student A he wanted to touch her leg, and that he loved her. The article reported, twice, that the complainant: “told the girl that he wanted to 'touch her leg' and [that he] 'loved her'”. This was presented as definitive point of fact, rather than allegations which had not been proven at the tribunal, which the publication accepted. By reporting unproven allegations as fact, the publication had failed to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact on this point. This was a breach of 1 (iv).

27. The Committee noted the inherent seriousness of reporting that a teacher had told a student he wanted to “touch her leg”, and that he “loved her”, as fact. The Committee also noted in the importance of accurately reporting on legal proceedings. For these reasons, presenting these claims as fact was significantly inaccurate and therefore required correction under Clause 1 (ii). 

28. The Committee next considered whether the breach of the Code had been sufficiently remedied, in line with the terms Clause 1 (ii). The publication had offered to amend the article, add a footnote correction, and run a standalone correction on its news page. The Committee was satisfied that the offered correction put the correct position on record, given it acknowledged that the tribunal had not determined the truth of the allegations. The Committee was also satisfied that the offered correction was suitably prominent, given the original inaccuracy appeared in the text of the article, and the publication had offered to amend the article to remove the significantly inaccurate information, add a footnote correction, and run a standalone correction.

29. However, the Committee noted that a correction had first been offered 28 days after the publication was made aware of the complaint, and – by extension – the correct position. Where the correction was first offered 28 days after this, and the correct position was clearly set out in the employment tribunal which the publication had been made aware of at this time, the Committee did not consider that the correction was offered promptly as required by Clause 1(ii). This was a breach of Clause 1(ii).

30. The Committee then turned to whether the article had accurately reported on the complainant sharing an assessment paper with Student A.

31. The article had reported that the complainant had shared “a maths assessment ahead of a test”, and had emailed Student A “a maths test assessment with instructions not to tell anyone”; the article had not specifically stated that the complainant had shared the same assessment test that the student was going to go on to sit. Further, the Committee noted that, as per the tribunal judgement, one of the reasons the complainant was dismissed was: “Providing a maths paper to student A on 12 June 2022, ahead of her maths test and thus giving her an unfair advantage”. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the publication had taken care over the accuracy of the article, and that it was not inaccurate or misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.  

32. The Committee then whether the article had inaccurately reported that he told Student A not to tell anyone that he had shared the test with her. The Committee noted that this statement in the article was clearly presented as claim attributed to Student A – it was not reported as fact that this had occurred: “She said he told her he 'loved her' and wanted to 'touch her leg' as well as emailing her a maths test assessment with instructions not to tell anyone”. The Committee considered this an accurate report of the tribunal judgement, which read: “Student A also said that the claimant had emailed a maths test assessment and told her not to tell anyone”. Accordingly, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken care to distinguish this point as a claim, and that the article was not inaccurate or misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

33. Next, the Committee then turned to whether the article was inaccurate to report that Student A and her mother had made formal complaints against the complainant, or that complaint had been told to stay away from the student.

34. The judgment made clear that on, 1 July 2022, “Student A raised a formal complaint about the claimant”, and subsequently, that “Student A’s mother had complained about the claimant’s conduct towards her daughter”. The judgment also made clear that “[t]he matter was initially discussed with the claimant by [a named individual], school principal. At that time the claimant was told to stay away from student A.”

35. The Committee also took into account the letter supplied by the complainant from the school’s DSL, which stated: “I confirmed that having spoken to the specific student she is not concerned or worried”. However, it recognised that this letter was dated 24 June 2022 – as set out above, the Committee did not consider it to be in dispute that following this letter, a formal complaint had been raised by the student against the complainant. The Committee also noted that the article did not report that Student A’s mother had raised a “formal” complaint – it simply quoted the judge’s statement referenced above, that Student A’s mother “had complained about” the complainant’s conduct. Accordingly, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had accurately reported the statements made at the tribunal. There was no breach of Clause 1.

36. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns that the article misleadingly portrayed his giving Student A chocolate and gifts, as it omitted to report that he and other teachers gave many students “small token and sweets”, and that the school was aware of this. On this point, the tribunal judgment said: “On 1 July 2022 student A raised a formal complaint about the claimant. The broad nature of the concerns was that the claimant sent emails, even though he wasn’t her teacher and that he provided presents such as poems, pens and chocolate”. The article had accurately reported this, and clearly distinguished it as a claim from Student A. The Committee also noted that publications are responsible for accurately reporting what is heard at tribunal – the fact that many students were given gifts was not referred to in the tribunal judgment, and the Committee did not consider, therefore, that the omission of this information rendered the article inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1.

37. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns that the article inaccurately reported on his email correspondence with the students, and omitted to report the time period over which he had sent 50 emails to the students in question. The Committee recognised that it was not in dispute that he had sent 50 emails to the students. The Committee also recognised that the tribunal judgment did not make reference to this time period as part of its decision – rather, the judgment stated that the “familiar tone” the complainant used in correspondence with the students, and the “volume of email contact” he had with them outside of school hours, contributed to the reasons he was dismissed.

38. In light of this, the Committee was satisfied that the article was not inaccurate or misleading on this point. It also did not consider that omitting the time period over which the emails were shared rendered the article inaccurate or misleading, where this had not been relevant to the finding of the employment tribunal. There was no breach of Clause 1.

39. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns that the article included a stock image of a girl in a way which unduly sensationalised the case. The Committee appreciated that the complainant disagreed with the use of the image. However, it had regard for the context of the story – it was not in dispute that the complainant had been dismissed for, among other reasons, sharing his personal phone number with a student, exchanging messages with students outside of school hours, and attempting to forge relationships that did not observe appropriate boundaries. In light of this, and where the image was clearly labelled as a “Stock Photo”, the Committee did not consider that it inaccurately or misleadingly represented the circumstances of the complainant’s dismissal. It also noted that the article as a whole made clear the reasons for the complainant’s dismissal. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

40. Finally, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns that the article was not balanced, and only reported a “damaging” view of the situation. Under the Editors’ Code, articles do not need to be balanced, as long as publications take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. Where – aside from the statement regarding the complainant wanting to “touch” a student’s leg – the Committee was satisfied that the article was an accurate report on the tribunal’s findings, it did not consider the article inaccurate or misleading in this regard. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

41. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

42. Having upheld one point of 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.

43. The Committee considered the online article inaccurately reported claims – that the complainant said he wanted to touch a student’s leg and that he loved a student – as fact. The publication had offered to publish a correction, which put on record the correction position – on both points – and was offered with due prominence. The Committee also noted that, aside from these points, the article was otherwise an accurate report of the employment tribunal.

44. However, the corrective action was not undertaken with due promptness, given the lapse in time between the publication being made aware of the complainant’s concerns and the offer of the correction. The Committee considered that the wording and placement of the proposed correction corrected the inaccuracy in sufficiently prominent locations. However, in light of the fact that the complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (ii) the correction should be amended to make clear that IPSO had upheld a complaint. The wording of this addition should be agreed with IPSO in advance.

Date complaint received: 27/03/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/07/2024