Ruling

01690-24 Weir v devonlive.com

  • Complaint Summary

    Elizabeth Weir complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that devonlive.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 5 (Reporting of suicide) and Clause 14 (Confidential Sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Devon dad's heartbreaking text to wife before walking into sea”, published on 16 April 2024.

    • Published date

      17th October 2024

    • Outcome

      No breach - after investigation

    • Code provisions

      1 Accuracy, 14 Confidential sources, 2 Privacy, 4 Intrusion into grief or shock, 5 Reporting suicide

Summary of Complaint

1. Elizabeth Weir complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that devonlive.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 5 (Reporting of suicide) and Clause 14 (Confidential Sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Devon dad's heartbreaking text to wife before walking into sea”, published on 16 April 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on the death of the complainant’s husband, Ben Weir. It appeared under the sub-headline: “Benjamin Weir was described as a 'kind, gentle and caring man'”. The article reported that Mr Weir had “unexpectedly ended his own life by walking into the sea at [town name] shortly after sending a heartbreaking message to his wife”. It stated that: “[the coroner] noted that he had been seen by NPAS Exeter police helicopter walking along the beach after concerns for his welfare were raised by his family. The Coastguard and RNLI were called to the scene after he was seen entering the water and swimming out some distance.” The article also reported the name of the beach where the complainant’s husband had died, as well as the name of the village where they lived.

3. The article noted that the coroner read out a statement from the complainant saying that after they met, Mr Weir “took on her two children as his own”, that “people were shocked at his passing and no-one was aware of any changes in his behaviour or personality in the weeks leading up to his death”, and that “despite working in mental health services herself for over a decade, she did not see anything which suggested he was struggling”.

3. The article reported on the circumstances leading to the complainant’s husband’s death. This included: references to a text he had sent to her prior to his death, both paraphrased and directly quoted; and a summary of the complainant’s actions after receiving messages from her husband.

4. The article also reported that the complainant “criticised the police, saying they were ignoring her pleas to find her husband and were not responding to” reports that her husband had been seen on the beach. It reported that “[s]he said that the police had told [a named individual] over the phone to stay by Mr Weir's car and that he told her officers were ‘standing around and doing nothing’".

5. The article also reported on the contents of a written statement made by the complainant for the inquest. It said that the complainant “believed that his death was ‘preventable’”.

6. The article also reported on statements which had been read out during the inquest. One of the statements, written by someone who knew the complainant’s husband, reported information about the complainant’s, and her husband’s, son.

7. The article also reported statements from the emergency services on the circumstances of the complainant’s husband’s death; this included the following:

“He [a police tactical flight officer] added that zooming in on the helicopter's camera he could see the man's clothes were wet and covered in sand. […] The officer's statement noted how the man was swimming further and further out with his face down in the water adding that he appeared to be ‘actively trying to drown himself’".

8. The article also reported on evidence given by a police officer during the inquest. It reported that a police officer made it to the beach, which was difficult to reach “due to the tide coming in and the rocks”. It also listed a number of reasons given by a police inspector as to why the police did not go into the water – this included that it was “getting dark”, the complainant’s husband had been “in the water for some time”, and the police were not equipped for a sea rescue.

9. The article also reported on a statement from another police officer – which included that there were a “number of difficulties in accessing the beach area due to the incoming tide and rocks, with some parts of the beach being inaccessible.”

10. Finally, the article concluded by reporting that the coroner “noted that Mr Weir had no history of depression or low mood and there had been no noticeable change in his behaviour. However […] [s]he also said she had to note how he had had walked into the water, swum out some distance and was seen to repeatedly put his face into the water. She also considered how he may have specifically chosen that location as he knew the area fairly well and ‘chose that particular location at that particular time because of the difficulty it would present for the emergency services in getting to him should they become aware of his location’. As such she recorded a conclusion of suicide”.

11. On 16 April – the day the article was published - the complainant complained directly to the publication. She requested that the article be removed entirely, and said that the information it included was confidential, and contained personal information about her family. She also stated that the article was inaccurate – her husband was called Ben, not Benjamin.

12. The publication expressed its condolences for the complainant’s loss. It declined to remove the article, however, it amended the article’s sub-headline to read “Ben Weir”, instead of “Benjamin Weir”. The publication also removed the reference to the complainant’s and her husband's son from the article.

13. One week later on 23 April, the complainant complained to IPSO. The complainant stated that the article breached Clause 5 because it was “too graphic”, and contained a “level of detail” which, she said, could give individuals ideas regarding suicide, and draw them to the particular location, time of day, and method which her husband used. In particular, she objected to the article reporting that her husband was “actively putting his head in the water and trying to drown himself”.

14. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 2 because it contained information about her and her family which she considered to be private. Specifically, she objected to the inclusion of information about her son that had been heard at the inquest, the village where she lived, and that she worked in mental health services, but was unaware that her husband was struggling. She also expressed concern that the article reported the statement she had given to the police, which she considered confidential, and that her husband “took on her two children as his own”. She also questioned the relevance of this information.

15. Further, the complainant said that the article breached Clause 4 because of the impact it had had on her family, and because it reported information she considered private. She stated that her family were grieving, and the article had made the situation worse by causing them to relive the day of her husband’s death. She also said that the article was too graphic, and reported too much information, in breach of Clause 4.

16. The complainant also stated that the article breached Clause 1, as it referred to her husband as Benjamin instead of Ben.

17. The complainant also stated that the article breached Clause 14 as she considered that it reported private information and was intrusive.

18. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning first to Clause 5, it said that the article was an accurate report of inquest proceedings. It said that it considered it “appropriate and important” to outline the evidence that demonstrated that the complainant’s husband’s actions were intentional, rather than being a result of misadventure or an accident. The publication noted that the article reported “particularly strong criticism” of the emergency services’ actions, such as that they were “standing around and doing nothing” - it said, therefore, that it chose to report the chronology of what had occurred on that day, as well as the emergency services’ perspective of the events, in the interest of balanced reporting.

19. Further, the publication said that, given it would be generally understood by readers that walking out to sea when the tide is coming in can be dangerous, the article did not report an unfamiliar or obscure method of suicide, or any excessive level of detail regarding the method used.

20. The publication also noted that the article did not report precisely how long the complainant’s husband had been in the water. In any event, it said this information had been disclosed in the inquest, and so it was entitled to report it.

21. The publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 4. It noted the public interest in reporting inquest proceedings. It also added that, in its view, reporting that the complainant’s husband was called Benjamin did not constitute insensitive reporting in breach of Clause 4.

22. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It stated that the article did not name or identify the complainant’s child. The publication also added that the village where the complainant lived was not private information, and that all other information which the complainant considered private had been disclosed during the inquest. It said, therefore, it was entitled to report this information.

23. Regarding Clause 1, the publication stated that it had referred to the complainant’s husband as Benjamin due to an “honest error”. Nevertheless, it did not consider this to be a significant inaccuracy.

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 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Clause 5 (Reporting suicide)*

When reporting suicide, to prevent simulative acts care should be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method used, while taking into account the media's right to report legal proceedings.

Clause 14 (Confidential sources)

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

Findings for the Committee

24. The Committee wished to express its sincere condolences to the complainant and her family for their loss.

25. The complainant had complained that the article as a whole constituted excessive detail regarding her husband’s death – it included too much information regarding where and when her husband had died, and she also specifically objected to the inclusion of information she considered to be “too graphic”. The Committee noted the information reported in the article. This included the name of the beach in question, as well as information regarding problems with accessing the beach at certain times due to rocks and the tide. The article also reported that her husband was seen “repeatedly [putting] his face into the water”, and “actively trying to drown himself’”.

26. Clause 5 requires that, when reporting on suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive details of the method used, to prevent simulative acts. This must be balanced, however, against a publication’s right to report on legal proceedings – and the Committee had regard, therefore, for the context in which this information appeared.

27. The complainant had criticised the emergency services, stating that her husband’s death had been “preventable”, and the reported statements given by members of the emergency services - which set out the difficulties in accessing the beach where the complainant’s husband died due to rocks and the high tide - provided their response to this criticism. In the Committee’s view, the information regarding the beach and its accessibility formed an important part of the inquest proceedings, and reporting it ensured an accurate reflection of both the criticism the emergency services had received and the further contextual information which explained the delays in their response. It also noted the article did not contain further information about the beach and its accessibility beyond what had been heard during the inquest.

28. The Committee also noted – as made clear in the coroner’s closing remarks - that information regarding the complainant’s husband’s actions at the beach was clearly relevant to the coroner’s decision of suicide, and it was important for the publication to report this to make clear that the verdict had been correctly reached. It was clear from the coroner’s remarks that the fact the complainant’s husband may have chosen “that particular location at that particular time” indicated that the death was not accidental or due to misadventure, and the fact that he was seen repeatedly putting his head in the water also supported a verdict of suicide.

29. Further, while the Committee acknowledged that the publication of the article – and specific details regarding her husband’s actions - had caused the complainant concern and upset, it did not consider that the reference to her husband “actively” or “repeatedly” placing his face in the water was excessive detail as defined by Clause 5, where this was directly relevant to explaining the reasons for the coroner’s verdict and explained the reasons for the conclusion. There was no breach of Clause 5.

30. The Committee then turned to Clause 4, starting with the complainant’s concerns that the article itself was not sensitive, was too graphic, and had caused her family grief. It had regard for the specific information reported in the article, and the context in which it appeared. The Committee again noted that the information had been heard during the inquest, and it had regard for the public interest in reporting on legal proceedings. The Committee, however, balanced this against the publication’s obligations under Clause 4.

31. In the Committee’s view, the article had been presented in a factual and non-sensational way – it did not consider that it made light of the circumstances of the complainant’s husband’s death, or the grief felt by his family at his death. Further, the Committee was also mindful that Clause 4 explicitly states that its provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings. The Committee again noted that the complainant’s criticisms of the emergency services, and the response of the emergency services – which included information regarding the complainant’s husband’s actions at the beach – clearly formed a large part of the inquest proceedings. It also noted that it was important the article reported information which made clear that the complainant’s husband’s death was intentional, and the inquest verdict of suicide was correctly reached - this included his actions and the circumstances leading to his death, such as the text messages he had sent to the complainant.

32. In light of this, the Committee – while it appreciated the distress felt by the complainant - was satisfied that the article was not insensitive in breach of Clause 4.

33. The Committee also considered whether it was insensitive, in breach of Clause 4, for the article to report the complainant’s husband’s name as Benjamin, as opposed to Ben. The Committee noted that accurately identifying individuals who have passed away is generally of significant importance when reporting on their death. However, in this case, it recognised Ben is generally used as a shorthand form for Benjamin, and that the error – though regrettable – did not appear to have come about due to carelessness on the part of the publication that would render its reporting insensitive. The Committee was therefore satisfied that this did not amount to insensitive reporting and there was no breach of Clause 4.

34. The Committee also considered the complainant’s concerns on this point under Clause 1. The Committee again recognised that Ben is generally used as a shorthand form for Benjamin. In light of this, in the Committee’s view the publication’s unfortunate assumption that the complainant’s husband’s full name was Benjamin did not constitute a lack of care taken over the article’s accuracy. In the context of the article as a whole – the rest of which referred to the complainant’s husband as Ben - it also did not consider this was a significant inaccuracy in need of correction, although the Committee regretted the distress this had caused the complainant and welcomed that the publication had promptly amended the error regardless. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

35. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2. This Clause is designed to ensure that people’s private and family lives are not intruded upon without justification – it is clear that, when determining whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy over information reported, the Committee will take into account the extent to which the information may already be in the public domain.

36. The Committee appreciated that the complainant objected to the reporting of information which she considered private, and irrelevant, to the circumstances of her husband’s death. It also noted that she may not have been informed that information disclosed in the inquest could be reported. In this case, however, the information had been made public during the course of the inquest hearing, and was therefore already in the public domain, prior to the publication of the article. Reporting this information, therefore, did not represent an intrusion into the complainant’s private and family life and there was no breach of Clause 2.

37. Further, the Committee also did not consider that reporting the village where the complainant lived intruded into her private life – the article omitted her specific street address, and the Committee noted that information regarding the addresses of individuals who have passed away are often given at an inquest to ensure the accurate identification of the individual. There was no breach of Clause 2.

38. Finally, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 14. It noted the complainant’s view that much of the reported information was confidential. However, Clause 14 relates to the moral obligation of journalists to protect their confidential sources of information, rather than to concerns about the publication of confidential information. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 14.

Conclusions

39. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

40. N/A


Date complaint received: 23/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/09/2024