01624-25 A man v Eastern Daily Press

Summary of Complaint

1. A man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Eastern Daily Press breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Bizarre court”, published on 8 April 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page five - reported on the complainant’s appearance at court. It said he “appeared in court via videolink from the floor of the courtroom lobby where he lay down with his dog rather than appear in the dock”. It said the “bizarre scenes unfolded at Great Yarmouth Magistrates Court where [the complainant…] was due to face a charge of assault and another of threatening the same woman. However, [the complainant], who arrived at the court building on crutches and accompanied by what appeared to be a French bulldog lay down in the downstairs lobby area with the animal next to him”. The article also included a photograph of the complainant with walking aids.

3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline “Gorleston man lies on floor with dog in courthouse”. This version was published on 7 April 2025.

4. The complainant said the article breached Clause 12 because it referred to his behaviour in the courthouse as “bizarre”. He said this was a discriminatory and pejorative reference to his disability, and that nothing he did was bizarre or newsworthy. Rather, the court had made a reasonable adjustment for him to use a side room where he appeared by video link. He explained he was offered a chair, but he was unable to sit in it due to his disability. The complainant also said the article did not make clear his dog, which accompanied him to court, was an assistance dog.

5. The complainant also said that the article had revealed he could not stand or sit for a long time. He said the article did not mention that a broken lift had led to the circumstances of him lying on the floor the day he appeared in court.

6. The complainant also complained under Clause 12 that the article reported he lay in a lobby. He said this was inaccurate as he was in a side room.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code, and said the term “bizarre” referred to the situation, not the complainant. It said while it was clear the complainant was disabled, it was not privy to any medical details, nor would this have impacted its reporting of the case. The publication said it was a court report and therefore it could only report on what was said in court.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 12 (Discrimination)

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Findings of the Committee

8. The Committee acknowledged Clause 12 is specific in its scope; it prohibits the use of prejudicial, pejorative and irrelevant references to an individual’s protected characteristics – including any physical illness or disability. However, it does not prevent the use of terms which may be offensive, provided those references are not directed at a specific individual’s protected characteristic as set out in the wording of the Clause. As such, the question for the Committee was whether the references were ones which related to his disability.

9. The Committee acknowledged that the scenes described in the article as “bizarre” were an outcome of reasonable adjustments made by the court in response to the complainant’s disability. However, the complainant as an individual was not described in such terms; the article simply referred to “bizarre scenes” and “bizarre court”. This described the situation, rather than the complainant’s disability. As such, the Committee did not consider that the article referenced the complainant’s disability in a manner that was prejudicial or pejorative, and there was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

10. The Committee noted that at no point did the article report that the complainant was disabled, or that he could not stand or sit for a long time. Nor was the complainant’s disability mentioned in court. It considered that readers may infer from the report that the complainant was either disabled or that he was temporarily incapacitated due to the reference to “crutches”, the photograph of him using crutches, and the fact that he was lying on the floor. However, the newspaper was entitled to report what had occurred at court and doing so did not constitute an irrelevant reference to the complainant’s disability. There was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

11. Further, omitting details such as the lift was broken or that the complainant’s dog was an assistance dog did not constitute a pejorative, prejudicial or irrelevant reference to the complainant’s disability. There was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

12. The Committee also considered the complainant’s concern that the article reported he was lying down in a side room, rather than a lobby. The Committee noted that the complainant’s concerns did not relate to a pejorative, prejudicial or irrelevant reference to his protected characteristic. As such, Clause 12 was not engaged.

Conclusions

13. The complaint was not upheld under Clause 12.

Remedial action required

14. N/A

Date complaint received: 07/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 15/08/2025