01647-25 Stutt v mirror.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Reece Stutt complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Mum and daughter terrified after man repeatedly leapt from bushes and took top off”, published on 5 April 2025.

2. The article, which appeared online only, reported on a court case in which the complainant admitted harassing a woman. It reported that the complainant “regularly harassed the woman as she walked her little girl to school by suddenly leaping out of bushes and removing his top.” It went on to report that “every time the worried mother saw Stutt, he would take his top off and would also slightly expose the top edge of his groin area, and she feared his actions would well escalate.”

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as he denied the incidents had taken place while the woman’s young daughter was with her. He also denied that he had taken his top off during the incidents. He said neither of these claims had been heard in court. He did however, acknowledge that he had pleaded guilty to harassment of the woman.

4. He also said the article breached Clause 1 because it omitted to mention that he had been experiencing a medical condition when the incidents occurred.

5. The publication did not accept that the article inaccurately reported that the complainant had “regularly jumped out of bushes and took off top in front of mum and young girl”, or that it had been heard in court he “took off his top every time that she [the victim] saw him and he would slightly expose the top edge of his groin area.” In support of these claims, it provided copies of the reporter’s contemporaneous short-hand court notes, which stated:

“Prosecution: The complainant (says) that at time she walked daily basis Mon to Fri would take her daughter to school walking down a cycle path. Defendant appeared to work out times she would be walking down cycle path. He would be there. He would there emerge from bushes or be stood on cycle path. Removed his top on every time and expose his V-line.”

6. The publication said that as the notes stated “the complainant (says) that at the time she walked daily basis Mon to Fri would take her daughter to school walking down a cycle path”, this signified that the woman’s young daughter had been with her at the time of the incidents.

7. The publication did not accept that the article breached Clause 1 by omitting to mention that the complainant had been suffering from a medical condition at the time of the offence. It initially said there was no evidence that the complainant’s medical condition had been mentioned, but later provided a transcript of the reporter’s notes which demonstrated that references to the complainant’s medical condition had been made in court.

8. The complainant disputed the accuracy of the reporter’s contemporaneous notes, and again disputed that it was heard in court that he had waited for the woman or that her young daughter had been with her when the incidents occurred.

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

9. The Committee noted that the complainant denied that it had been heard in court that the woman’s young daughter was with her when the incidents occurred, or that he had taken his top off during the incidents. The Committee also noted that the publication had been able to provide the reporter’s contemporaneous notes which referenced the incidents taking place when “the woman would take her daughter to school walking down a cycle path” and that the complainant “appeared to work out times she would be walking down cycle path. He would be there. He would emerge from bushes or be stood on cycle path. Removed his top on every time and exposed his V-line”.

10. However, the reporter’s notes did not unequivocally state that the woman’s young daughter had been present at the time of the incidents, and the publication did not provide any further supporting documentation, such as the complainant’s charge sheet, which may have resolved the issue. Given this, the Committee was unable to reach a definitive view on this point. Nevertheless, the Committee noted that the article had accurately reported that the complainant had been found guilty of harassing the woman and that the reporter’s notes supported the report that he had removed his top during the incidents. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider the article to be a significantly misleading report of his conviction. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

11. The Committee noted that, whether or not a defendant’s medical details have been heard in court, there is no obligation under the Editors’ Code for a newspaper to include all details of a court case in its reporting, including details of a defendant’s mitigation, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. There, was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

12. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

13. N/A  

Date complaint received: 09/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/09/2025