01607-25 A man v thetimes.com

Summary of Complaint

1. A man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thetimes.com breached Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of the following two articles:

· “‘Stretched’ MI5 forced to prioritise Russia over terrorists, says chief”, published on 6 December 2024; and

· “Spymaster’s top job was kept a secret — even from his children”, published on 6 December 2024.

2. The articles also appeared in print. However, as the complaint about the print versions of the articles was not made within four months of their initial publication, only the online versions of the articles were within IPSO’s remit.

3. The two articles under complaint were based on information the complainant had provided to the publication. A reporter who worked for the newspaper had a long-standing professional relationship with the complainant, and the complainant had been passing the journalist confidential information – on the basis that he would not be identified - since 2021.

4. Prior to the publication of the articles – on 22 November – the reporter contacted the complainant via WhatsApp. In this message, the reporter asked for a copy of the Keeping It Civil podcast.

5. The complainant and the reporter exchanged several messages after the initial request; in these messages, the complainant said that he was away on holiday and therefore unable to action the request. After he had returned from holiday, the complainant downloaded a copy of the podcast transcript from the Civil Service portal; he sent this to the reporter on 4 December.

6. On 6 December, the reporter contacted the Civil Service, via email, seeking comment on the then-upcoming articles. The email, sent at 10:41am, said as follows:

“Good morning, 

[Reporter] here from The Times. I'm writing a story about the ‘keeping it civil’ podcast that the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, has co-hosted.

The story will include comments made by him and his three interviewees - Chris Whitty, Ken McCallum and Karen Pearce, and will mention that he co-hosts it with Home Office civil servant, […].

The comments are below, please send over any response you would like to be included by 4pm today.“

7. On the same day, internal Civil Service investigators identified the complainant as potentially having provided a copy of the transcript, based on his use of its internal computer system. At 2:21pm, the complainant was informed he was to be interviewed by investigators in relation to this matter.

8. At 5pm, the complainant contacted the reporter to inform them that his login details to the portal had been compromised. The complainant requested that the story not be published.

9. At 6pm, the complainant was interviewed by the investigators. During this interview, the complainant initially denied having had recent contact with the reporter and informed the investigators that he had not downloaded the transcript. Later, during the same interview, the complainant informed the investigators that he had downloaded the transcript but was unsure if he had passed it onto anyone else. At another later stage of the interview, the complainant confirmed he was the source that had provided the transcript to the reporter working on behalf of the newspaper. The investigators also questioned the complainant about several other incidents in which there were allegations of leaks of confidential information. After the interview, at 8pm, the first of the two articles was published.

10. The complainant was suspended following the interview. Three months later, the complainant was dismissed from the Civil Service for disclosing unauthorised information to the publication.

11. The first article reported on an interview given by the director-general of MI5 on “a civil service podcast”. The article reported that “The Times has obtained a copy of the interview with” the director-general, and that the interview copy was, “marked ‘official sensitive’”. The article included a quote from a Cabinet Office spokesman.

12. The second article also reported on the same interview. This article also reported that “[t]he transcripts of the interviews are marked ‘official sensitive’”.

13. The complainant said that the conduct of the publication and the decision to publish both articles breached the terms of Clause 14. He argued that the journalist “failed to uphold the necessary protections for [him as] the source, disregarding the manner in which the information was obtained, the implications thereof, and the subsequent reporting to the Cabinet Office, proceeding with the story despite [his] compromised [login details].” He also said that the journalist had persistently requested information about the podcast from him, and that he had provided him with the transcript in a “jet-lagged state”, unaware that it was marked “Official-sensitive”.

14. The complainant provided several examples of how he considered the publication had not protected him as a source. He said the “wording and framing [within the article] effectively ensured [his] identification”, and that the articles “repeatedly referenc[ed] ‘the source’”. He added that the publication had prioritised the publication of an exclusive story rather than protecting him as a source. 

15. In addition to this, the complainant said that, although the publication did not publicly name him, he was indirectly compromised due to its failure to safeguard him by “ensuring that no identifiable trace was left in the” Civil Service podcast portal; the complainant said this trace became the key factor in the investigation that led to his identification. The complainant also said that the publication should have been aware of the risks involved in handling sensitive information and taken greater steps to protect his identity.

16. The complainant also said the publication should have stopped the story from running in order to minimise any disciplinary proceedings he faced. The complainant said that the publication’s actions directly led to his dismissal – the publication had approached the Cabinet Office for comment and an internal investigation was launched into the leak on that same day. The complainant did not believe there was a strong public interest in publishing the articles and said that the journalist's actions accelerated the investigation and his suspension.

17. The publication did not accept it had breached Clause 14. It did not dispute that the complainant acted as a confidential source but said he would have been in no doubt that the journalist, in requesting the transcript, was planning a story for publication. It noted that the complainant had previously provided information to the journalist and was well aware because of this that the information was likely to be published. It also said that contrary to what the complainant had said, the articles did not reference a “source”.

18. In addition to this, the publication said the complainant would also have known it was likely that the journalist would approach the government for comment as this was standard practice. The publication said that nothing in the journalist’s approach for comment or the articles under complaint made the complainant’s identification inevitable or even likely. The transcript the complainant had provided was available to many civil servants on the government computer system. The publication said that, if the complainant was not aware that he could have been traced as the source of the transcripts, it was also not in a position to know or suspect the complainant would be identified in this manner. The publication added that the reporter had simply quoted from the document in seeking a government response and had not included any information which would have identified the complainant.

19.  With regard to the complainant’s comments about not running the story, the publication noted that by the time the request had been made, the complainant had already been identified by government investigators as a possible source of the leak based on his use of the Civil Service computer system. It added that, during the interview with the investigators before the article was published, the complainant had admitted being the source. It therefore said that it could not have done anything to prevent the complainant from losing his job nor did it cause this.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 14 (Confidential sources)

Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

Findings of the Committee

20. Both parties accepted that the complainant, in providing the transcript of the interview podcast to the journalist, was acting as a confidential source. Both parties also accepted that the complainant had been identified by his employer as a confidential source, prior to the article’s publication.

21. The question for the Committee, therefore, was whether the identification of the complainant came about due to a failure on the part of the publication to protect its confidential source of information.

22. The Committee considered first the initial decision by the publication to use the material as the basis for a published article. It was mindful that the complainant had been sharing information that led to published stories with the journalist for several years without complaint by the complainant. It was reasonable for the publication to understand that he intended the material for publication and was aware of the general practice followed by journalists in handling such material, including that interested parties would likely be approached for comment. It also noted that the complainant had not sought clarification from the journalist regarding how he intended to use the transcript, had not indicated that he did not wish for it to be published, or said that he did not wish for his employers to be approached for comment.

23. Further, in the view of the Committee, the publication could not reasonably have known that only two people had accessed the relevant transcripts, given the large number of people with access to the podcast. The complainant himself was unaware of this fact. In relation to the complainant’s contention that the publication should have had greater regard because he was unaware that he was passing on material marked official/sensitive to the publication, the Committee considered that the publication was entitled to understand that he had properly read the documents he was passing over and was aware of the nature of the material. The initial decision to prepare the material for publication did not constitute a failure to protect the complainant as a confidential source.

24. The approach for comment, made by the publication to the complainant’s employer, did not name him, or reference – even implicitly – how it had obtained the information which the article would be reporting on, and that it had a confidential source who worked for the employer. It was a standard step taken to fulfil the obligation to take care over accuracy and contained no additional information beyond that which would be contained in a published article. The approach for comment did not constitute a failure to protect the complainant.

25. The complainant had also said that the publication should have prevented the articles from going to print once it realised his employers had identified him, to mitigate any harm caused to him. However, the Committee was of the view that stopping the publication of the articles, as requested by the complainant, would not have protected him as a confidential source – he had already been identified by his employers as having downloaded the transcript and – prior to the article’s publication - had told his employer that he had provided a confidential document to the publication. At any rate, the article did not identify the complainant; reference that a confidential source had been used in its newsgathering process; or disclose additional material that could affect the complainant’s employment. The decision to proceed with publication in these circumstances did not constitute a failure to protect the complainant.

26. Taking the above into account, the Committee found that there was no breach of Clause 14 as the publication had taken all reasonable steps to protect its confidential source,

Conclusions

27. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

28. N/A

Date complaint received: 07/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/08/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.