01761-24 The family of John Chapman v The Sun

Summary of Complaint

1. The family of John Chapman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication on article headlined “TRAGIC MISTAKE”, published on 3 April 2024.

2. The article, which appeared on pages 4 and 5, reported on the death of three British aid workers in an airstrike in Gaza on 1 April, and the international reaction to the incident. It reported: “Married dad-of-two Mr Chapman, from Poole, had been in Gaza only a few weeks after stints in the Middle East. A former comrade paid tribute yesterday, saying: ‘He was a very well-liked guy, a very popular bloke and this is a huge loss for his family, his friends and for the veteran community’”.

3. The article also appeared online, published at 5:24pm on 2 April, under the headline: “EX-SOLDIERS SLAIN Brit ex-Royal Marine & special forces hero security team among 7 killed in Israeli airstrike on Gaza aid convoy”.

4. The online article appeared beneath the sub-heading: “ALL three Brits killed in Israel's ‘unintentional’ airstrike on an aid convoy in Gaza worked for a security company based in Dorset”. Subsequently, it reported: “One of the men who died was former SBS hero John Chapman, 59, who lived in Poole. The ex-Royal Marine, a married dad-of-two, had only been in Gaza a matter of weeks after previous stints working in the Middle East. A former comrade yesterday paid tribute to a ‘brilliant bloke’".

5. At approximately 1:30pm on 2 April, the day before the publication of the print article, a reporter from the publication visited the house of Tony and Annette Chapman, John Chapman’s parents. An interaction followed between the reporter and the complainants.

6. On 3 April, following the publication of the article, a relative of John Chapman – an individual not party to the complaint – contacted the publication, and informed them that he was the father of three children, rather than two, as stated in the article. On the same day, the publication updated the online article to refer to Mr Chapman as a “dad-of-three”.

7. On 29 April, the complainants – the parents, wife and brother-in-law of John Chapman - complained to IPSO. They complained that the interaction at the property, and the subsequent article that was published, breached the Editors’ Code.

8. They explained, from their perspective, what had happened during the interaction. The airstrikes in question occurred around 10:30pm local time (8:30pm UK time) on 1 April. Tarnia Chapman, John Chapman’s wife, had been informed of his death in the early hours on 2 April. The family decided to travel to Tony and Annette Chapman’s – John Chapman’s parents - house and inform them in person, however, the reporter had arrived beforehand, at around 1:30pm. The complainants said that Annette Chapman answered the door, at which point the reporter, without identifying himself as a journalist, informed Tony and Annette Chapman that there had been an airstrike, and people had been hurt. Annette invited the reporter into the house, at which point he entered. The complainants said he then remained in the house and tried to elicit information from Tony and Annette Chapman, despite their confusion.

9. While the reporter was in the house, Annette Chapman rang Tarnia Chapman twice, both of which went to voicemail. At the point of the second call, the complainants said that the reporter identified himself as a journalist when asked about his identity. Annette then asked the reporter if John Chapman was dead, and he told her that he did not know - which, the complainants said, was untrue, as that knowledge was the purpose of his visit. The complainants said that Tarnia Chapman then called back, and informed Annette of John Chapman’s death over the phone, with the reporter still present.

10. At this point, the complainants said Tarnia Chapman passed the phone to David Graham, John Chapman’s brother-in-law, who she was with, who then spoke to the reporter. The complainants said that Mr Graham asked the reporter what he was doing in the property, to which he said he was “he was invited in” - the complainants said this was not genuine, as they believed Annette and Tony were not told he was a journalist before inviting him in. The complainants said that Mr Graham then asked the reporter to leave, which he initially refused to do.

11. The complainants said that the interaction intruded into and added to their grief, exacerbated a distressing situation, and negated and undermined all efforts to sensitively deliver the news of John Chapman’s death to his parents – whom, they said, were elderly and vulnerable. They said that the reporter should not have attended the home; should have identified himself as a journalist immediately; should not have gained access to the house by subterfuge; should not have remained in the property and persisted with questioning, and should have immediately left when told to do so. On the above points, they complained that the publication had breached both Clause 3 and Clause 4 of the Editors’ Code.

12. In support of their position, they supplied IPSO with a recording of the two voicemails. The recordings included the following:

First Voicemail

Annette Chapman (AC): Tarnia, there's somebody here about John, is he hurt? Come in.

Second Voicemail

AC: Tarnia? She’s gone, ain’t she? Where did you get this message from then?

Reporter: The message was put round by a foreign news agency called AFP.

AC: You just telling us that he could be dead? Do you know? Or are you not telling us?

Reporter: I don't know, I don't know conclusively anything I'm afraid. I'm going off what the foreign news agency has put round on the news wire. There were names of people that might be involved or could have been in the area and John was one of them. So I was hoping, madam, that you might be....

AC: Well who do you work for then?

Reporter: I work for The Sun, I work for the newspaper called The Sun. That's why I come here today. I'm [reporter’s name], I'm a news reporter.

AC: Yeah.

[…]

13. The complainants also said that the article breached Clause 4 because it reported that John Chapman was a father of two, and not three. While they noted this had been amended, no reference to this mistake was made – they said the error was hurtful, and had added to their distress. They also complained that the article breached Clause 1 on this point.

14. Further, the complainants stated that the reporter’s approach breached Clause 10. They said the reporter should not have attended the house in the first place – and, notwithstanding this, the reporter should have immediately identified himself as a journalist, as by failing to do so, he had obtained access to the house by subterfuge. They also said that the reporter used deceit to gain further information, by stating that he did not know if John Chapman was deceased.

15. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It supplied a recording of its reporter’s approach to the house and described the reporter’s, and the complainants’, physical movements. The recording began with the reporter approaching Tony Chapman outside his house, and included the following extracts:

Reporter: Hello Tony? I'm sorry to bother you my name is [reporter’s name], I'm a news reporter with The Sun newspaper.

Tony Chapman (TC): Excuse me?

Reporter: I'm with The Sun, I'm a journalist.

TC: Oh I see, yeah.

Reporter: Sorry to disturb you. Is it Tony?

TC: Yeah.

Reporter: I'm here about John.

TC: Alright, what about John?

Reporter: Your son, John Chapman?

TC: Yeah?

Reporter: I want to make sure that I've got the right address.

TC: Yeah you have, yeah.

Reporter: John worked in Gaza in, as a...

TC: These last few weeks.

Reporter: OK, have you heard any news from him at all?

TC: No.

Reporter: Is your wife home? I think he might have been involved in an incident.

TC: No?

Reporter: It's not really for me to discuss it. I think um…

TC: Well, tell me what's going on, want to see my wife?

Reporter: If that is ok.

TC: Yeah, come in. [indistinguishable]

Reporter: I don't know the full details of it, I'm afraid.

16. At this point, the publication said, the reporter called his news desk. He subsequently returned to the property holding up his press pass, and the following conversation ensued, in the doorway of the property:

Reporter: Hello madam, really sorry to bother you. There's been some media reports today about British... Sorry my name is [reporter’s name], here's my ID.

AC: Yeah.

Reporter: There's been some media reports today about British aid workers in Gaza that might have been involved in an air strike.

AC: Today?

Reporter: Yes.

AC: Is he over there now John? [to Tony Chapman] I don't think he is.

Reporter: I want to make sure I've got the right address.

AC: I will get in touch with his wife and find out if he is there.

Reporter: Okay. I'm really sorry if I've caused you alarm for no reason, but I have been asked to speak with John Chapman's parents to see if they know any more about what could have happened there.

17. During the conversation in the doorway, the reporter asked a number of questions, including: “Has he always worked in foreign aid?”; “He was in the marines?” and “Do you know which division he was in?”. When asked by Tony Chapman: “what has happened?”, he replied: “There’s been some air strikes that could have affected people working in aid. There were some British people that are said to have been involved and I know that John Chapman was…”.

18. Annette Chapman then said: “Ask him to come in. Come in”. The reporter responded: “Is that OK?”, to which Tony Chapman said: “Yeah, go on”. The reporter then entered the property. A conversation then followed inside the property, which included the following extracts:

AC: Can't you tell us anything then?

Reporter: I'm really sorry to turn up like this. There has been an airstrike and a number of people are hurt in the airstrike, and three people are thought to be British and one of the names of people working in that area was John.

[…]

Reporter: Had John been working out there for long?

TC: [indistinguishable]

AC: Not that long.

Reporter: There was a company he was working with, called the something Kitchen. Does that ring any bells?

TC: No.

19. Annette Chapman then called Tarnia Chapman. A conversation followed, before the call went through to voicemail, as recorded by the complainant’s second voicemail quoted above. The publication said that Annette Chapman then passed the phone to the reporter, who spoke to David Graham. The recording of the reporter’s side of the conversation went as follows:

Hello, you are speaking to [reporter’s name] from The Sun.

I'm sorry I was invited in. I was standing on the street and I’ve been invited to the front door.

No, I can assure you that is not the case, I was standing at the front door.

I'm sorry who am I speaking with?

OK this is a large story in the public interest and we are trying to work out what's going on sir, sorry.

OK, understood, understood.

OK, bye bye.

20. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 4. It set out, firstly, the timeline of its investigation prior to the approach to the property.

21. It had started working on the story overnight, when news of the airstrike first came out. At around 8:00am on 2 April, images had been published online on Getty Images of John Chapman’s passport, retrieved from the scene of the airstrike. The publication later supplied IPSO with the images in question. The publication said that at 10:17am, Associated Press also reported that three British nationals had been killed abroad.

22. Following this, the publication said that it contacted the Foreign & Commonwealth Office multiple times. It said it contacted them by telephone but was unable to get through, and so it emailed at 10.34am, asking for the latest information, and alerting them to the fact that John Chapman’s name had been provided to them by local journalists. It supplied IPSO with its email correspondence. Its email of 10:34am read:

“Hi, please can you send me the latest info you have re the British victims of the air strike which has killed aid workers in Gaza from the World Central Kitchen group, and also add me to the distribution list for any releases through the day. 

I am sure you are aware by now but AP are reporting that three British people have been killed and two possible names we have been given from journalists at the scene are John Antony Chapman (DoB 16/5/66) […]”. 

23. It later emailed again, at 3:16pm and 6:54pm, but did not receive a response till the following day.

24. Around the same time, shortly after 10:30am, the publication obtained an address for John Chapman’s parents, as well as a family tree for John Chapman. It said it decided to check the details it had found and approached the FCO, John Chapman’s company, and the complainants’ property.

25. The publication noted that sending reporters to visit family members of deceased individuals is not, in of itself, insensitive or indiscreet – family and friends may wish to talk about and pay tribute to deceased family members. It also said it was not unreasonable for it to assume – notwithstanding its efforts to obtain this information - that the family would have already been informed. Indeed, it noted that the “immediate family” – John Chapman’s wife - had been informed, albeit this information had not been passed on to Mr Chapman’s parents.

26. Regarding the interaction at the house, the publication said that the reporter had not found Tony or Annette Chapman to be vulnerable or confused – the publication said they were “able to understand and respond to him normally and naturally”. They also said he was not initially certain that Tony and Annette Chapman were John Chapman’s parents.

27. Notwithstanding this, the publication said that its reporter had found himself in a difficult situation, upon realising that Tony and Annette Chapman were not aware of John Chapman’s death. He therefore sought advice from the news desk – the publication said it was agreed that he should not say anything that would reveal John Chapman’s death, but that he should stay and make polite conversation before leaving as soon as possible, as immediately leaving may provoke further questions. The publication’s recording, which only captured the reporter’s side of the conversation with the news desk, included the following:

The parents don’t even know. So, they’ve asked me what happened, I don’t really want to break it to them, they’re elderly. So, do you know what I mean, it’s one of those ones where I feel like I have to make the desk aware of this before anything else happens. I can’t like not tell them, it’s like… I’m outside, yeah they’re asking. I’m outside, they’re asking me what’s happening. Like, what do you think? Yeah, its Foreign Office isn’t it. I can’t. I can’t. I can’t tell them this, it’s too much.

28. It acknowledged that, with hindsight, it may have been a better decision to leave the property before any substantive interaction occurred. It also stated that it regretted that its reporter had reached the house before Tony and Annette Chapman’s family. However, it said that the reporter, once aware of the situation, tried not to give any additional information which may have caused further distress.

29. Regarding its reporting that John Chapman had two children, the publication noted that reports of an individual’s death often contain brief information regarding their family members – it is not uncommon for this information to be incomplete, and the family tree it had obtained for Mr Chapman said he had two children. While it acknowledged that the error was regrettable, it did not consider that it represented a breach of Clause 4 – it said no sensitive information was exposed, and the inaccuracy was not significant enough to raise a breach of Clause 1.

30. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 3. It stated that its reporter was invited into the property, and not asked to leave by Tony and Annette - rather, he was asked to leave by someone on the phone. It added that the reporter left the property once asked to do so, as demonstrated by its recording. It said that no harassment of any kind had occurred.

31. In response, the complainants stated that their position was unchanged. They said that the reporter was aware that John Chapman’s parents were unaware of the situation, and the reporter exploited this by entering the property to ask questions. The proper course of action, they said, would have been to withdraw from the property after the initial approach. They reiterated that the reporter’s actions had exacerbated the family’s grief in breach of Clause 4, and said that this would have been entirely foreseeable for the reporter.

32. Under Clause 3, the complainants maintained that the reporter refused to leave when first asked, and only did so once he was forcefully asked. Mr Graham further detailed his recollection of the phone call, and set out a transcript of the conversation he believed had occurred. He said that he told the reporter to leave the house multiple times – and that he had a “vivid recollection” that when he initially told the reporter to leave the property, the reply was “No I won't, I was invited in”, or words to that effect. He also said that following this interaction, the reporter left the property, at which point he passed the phone back to Tarnia Chapman, who informed Annette Chapman of John Chapman’s death.

33. In response, in relation to Clause 3, the publication said that its reporter was taken by surprise by the phone call. It said that Mr Graham's tone was angry, and the reporter was not immediately clear who he was talking to, nor whether Mr Graham was authorised to act on Tony and Annette Chapman’s behalf, including demand he leave their home. Nevertheless, it maintained that the reporter did very quickly agree to leave, as requested.

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 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

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 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*

i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

Findings of the Committee

34. The Committee first expressed its sincere condolences for the complainants’ loss.

35. Clause 4 requires that, in times of personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion. The Committee considered whether each element of the publication’s decision-making was compliant with the terms of this Clause. This included: the decision to approach the property in the first instance; the decision to enter the property; and the interactions between the reporter and members of the family after he had entered the property.

36. The Committee turned first to the decision to approach the property. Roughly seventeen hours had passed since the airstrike, and images of John Chapman’s passport retrieved at the scene of the airstrike had been posted online, albeit not in a news story widely available to the public – rather, it appeared they had been released by a photo agency, Getty Images, to news organisations. In such circumstances, in the Committee’s view, the decision to seek comment from the family did not in of itself constitute a breach of Clause 4, so long as the approach was handled in accordance with Clause 4; the death of an aid worker in these circumstances was a significant and legitimate news story.

37. The Committee then turned to interaction at the property. It has long been recognised that the press should take care not to disclose news of a person’s death to the immediate members of their family – and that doing so, generally, is an intrusion into the grief and shock of the affected individual. The Committee noted that, in this particular case, there was no official confirmation that the family had been informed – or indeed that Mr Chapman was deceased. In these circumstances, particular care should therefore have been taken when making the approach to the Chapman household.

38. The reporter encountered Mr Chapman’s father outside the property on arrival. It was evident from his demeanour, as conveyed by the recording, that he was not in a state of distress as would likely have been the case had he been aware of his son’s involvement in the incident. At this point, it should have been evident to the reporter that there was at least a strong likelihood that the Chapmans were unaware of John Chapman’s death. This was then confirmed when, in the initial interaction, the reporter asked Mr Chapman’s father: “have you heard any news from him at all?”, to which he responded “no”.

39. The reporter had then contacted the news desk to ask for guidance. The Committee wished to record its view that, at this stage, the reporter had acted properly and appropriately by stepping away from a sensitive situation, and seeking guidance on how to handle the situation.

40. The reporter had then been advised, on the publication’s account, that he should make polite conversation, but not reveal John Chapman’s death, before leaving as soon as possible. The publication said it had reached this decision as its view was that leaving immediately may have led to further questions.

41. The Committee noted the publication’s response, but in its view the decision to direct the reporter to remain at the property in circumstances where the publication was aware that Mr Chapman was, or very likely was, deceased, and his parents were unaware of this, represented a clear breach of Clause 4 and was likely to cause significant distress, confusion, and intrusion. It made it likely that the reporter either would disclose information about Mr Chapman’s condition, or would be present when the family received distressing news about their son.

42. It also led to a situation in which the reporter was drawn into conversations about Mr Chapman that were highly intrusive and caused the family further concern and upset. For example, after initially telling the complainants outside the property: “I think he might have been involved in an incident”, the reporter had then responded to further questions asking whether he could be dead, by saying: “I don't know, I don't know conclusively anything I'm afraid”.

43. The publication had said that the reporter was trying to make polite conversation before leaving as soon as possible. However, the Committee did not consider that his actions - intentionally or otherwise – tallied with this account. The reporter asked a number of specific questions regarding Mr Chapman, clearly posed as journalistic enquiries: such as asking who Mr Chapman worked for in Gaza, and whether he was previously in the marines. This demonstrated that the reporter was undertaking further inquiries rather than leaving the situation at the earliest opportunity.

44. Further, while the reporter did not disclose to the Chapmans that their son had been killed, he had disclosed information to the family about the circumstances of his death. For example, after informing the complainants that there had been an airstrike, he later said: “There were names of people that might be involved or could have been in the area and John was one of them”.

45. The Committee acknowledged that the reporter had found himself in a difficult situation – and, in its view, he had tried to take steps to handle it appropriately, such as seeking advice. However, the decision to enter the property made it reasonably foreseeable, and even likely, that such a difficult situation would arise. While it noted the publication’s concerns that leaving the property after the initial approach may have led to further questions, the magnitude of the potential harm that might have been caused was far lesser than what subsequently occurred: the parents of John Chapman being made aware, via an interaction with a reporter working for a national publication and without the appropriate support of their family and support networks, that their son had been involved in an airstrike, which in fact had been fatal.

46. The Committee did not consider that the reporter’s decision to enter the property or the further interactions that occurred while he was in the property constituted a sympathetic or discreet approach. This was a breach of Clause 4.

47. The Committee then turned to Clause 3. The complainants had complained about the actions of the reporter at the property, and said that his behaviour and actions during his time at the property constituted harassment. They had also, more specifically, contended that the reporter had failed to sufficiently identify himself, and had not left the property when requested to do so.

48. Reporters are not required to identify themselves immediately under Clause 3 – rather, they are required to identify themselves when asked to do so. Here, as was made clear from the recording, the reporter had immediately introduced himself to Tony Chapman outside the property – the first recorded statement was: “Hello Tony? I'm sorry to bother you my name is [reporter’s name], I'm a news reporter with The Sun newspaper”, and then, “I'm with The Sun, I'm a journalist”. Further, when approaching Annette Chapman in the doorway, the reporter had again provided his name and showed his press pass. Finally, once inside the property and later asked as to his identify, he had again provided his name, and the publication he represented. This was audible in both the voicemail, and the publication’s recording.

49. The Committee appreciated that the complainants had found themselves in a distressing and confusing situation – and that this information may have not been clearly understood, or remembered, in the aftermath of the situation. However, having taken the recording into account, it was satisfied that the reporter had identified himself in line with the terms of Clause 3.

50. The Committee also did not consider that the interaction constituted harassing or intimidating conduct by the reporter. Clause 3 is intended to prevent persistent pursuit, repeated instances of unwanted contact from journalists, and intimidating behaviour – while concerns regarding behaviour which, by its nature, intrudes into someone’s grief or shock, is dealt with by the terms of Clause 4. While the reporter’s approach was intrusive into the complainants’ grief or shock the Committee did not consider that it amounted to harassment or intimidation – the reporter was, throughout the interaction, polite, and it was clear from the recording that he had not engaged in any behaviour that could reasonably be described as intimidating. There was no breach of Clause 3 on these points.

51. The Committee then turned to the complaint that the reporter had not left the property when asked to do so by John Chapman’s brother-in-law. The Committee noted that it did not have a perfect record of the conversation between the brother-in-law and the reporter - the recording only captured the reporter’s side, and Mr Chapman’s brother-in-law was recalling a conversation had in distressing circumstances some months prior.

52. John Chapman’s brother-in-law said he told the reporter to leave multiple times, and the reporter had not done so. However, the Committee recognised that the reporter had left quickly after speaking with him on the phone – he had engaged in a short conversation, during which he tried to determine who he was speaking with on the telephone. The Committee also had regard for the fact that the reporter was requested to leave the property by someone on the telephone, as opposed to the people who were actually in the property with him at that time, and who had invited him in.

53. On balance, and in the circumstances set out, the Committee did not consider there had been a breach of Clause 3. The Committee had found that the reporter should not have entered the property once he was aware of the family’s circumstances and that was a breach of Clause 4. However, it was clear that he had initially entered with the parents’ agreement and had left the property quickly once he understood who had made the request. In these circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 3.

54. The Committee next considered whether the inaccuracy regarding the number of Mr Chapman’s children had breached Clause 4 or Clause 1. Both parties accepted that the article was inaccurate on this point; the questions under the Code for the Committee were whether this inaccuracy represented insensitive reporting, whether it had come about due to a lack of care taken on the part of the publication, and whether the inaccuracy was significant.

55. The Committee appreciated this error had caused distress to the complainants. However, the terms of Clause 4 stipulate publication should be handled sensitively. The Committee considered that the article, in reporting on Mr Chapman’s death, did so in a respectful manner – for example, it included tributes to him - and the Committee did not consider that it sought to make light of or trivialise Mr Chapman’s death. It also did not consider that this error came about due to a lack of sensitivity on the part of the publication; it had accessed a family tree, albeit an inaccurate one, and this was the source of this information. The publication had also amended the error once made aware. In light of these factors, while the error was regrettable, there was no breach of Clause 4 on this point.

56. In regard to Clause 1, the Committee again noted that the publication had accessed this information from an online family tree, and that there did not appear to be information readily available in the public domain that contradicted this. It further noted that, in light of the interaction with the complainants, the publication was not in a position to verify its understanding directly with them. In light of this, the Committee was of the view that the publication had taken sufficient care taken over the accuracy of this claim, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

57. The Committee next considered whether the inaccuracy was significant and therefore in need of correction. It had regard for the context of the article, which reported on the airstrike, the international reaction to the airstrike, and the deaths of a number of individuals. The article was not solely focused on Mr Chapman, and the inaccurate reference to him being a father of two, as opposed to three, was a passing remark. It was clear that, regardless of the inaccuracy, the point being made that he was a father, who had sadly died alongside a number of other individuals. In light of this, although the Committee regretted the upset the error had caused, it did not consider it to be a significant inaccuracy in need of correction. There was therefore no breach of Clause 1 - although the Committee welcomed that the publication had promptly amended the error in the online article.

58. The Committee turned to the complainants’ concerns under Clause 10 – that the reporter did not identify himself and gained access to the property by subterfuge, and then used deceit, by not informing Tony and Annette of John Chapman’s death, to gain further information.

59. Clause 10 is clear that engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge can generally be justified only in certain circumstances – the Committee recognised that it generally applies to the use of misrepresentation or subterfuge to hide or obscure a journalist’s identity to obtain information. The Committee considered the reporter’s approach to the property, and had regard for the recording of the interaction. The recording made clear that when the reporter first approached Tony Chapman outside his property, he stated: “my name is [reporter’s name], I'm a news reporter with The Sun newspaper”. He later, to Annette Chapman, said: “Sorry my name is [reporter’s name], here's my ID”, and, when later asked about his identity, replied: “I work for The Sun, I work for the newspaper called The Sun. That's why I come here today. I'm [reporter’s name], I'm a news reporter”.

60. The Committee appreciated the situation the complainants had found themselves in. However, having taken into account the recording, it was satisfied that the reporter had not used misrepresentation or subterfuge – he had identified himself, and the publication he represented. In these circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 10.

Conclusions

61. The complaint was upheld under Clause 4.

Remedial action required

62. Having upheld the 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.

63. As the article breached Clause 4, and the breach could not be remedied by way of a correction, the remedial action required was an adjudication.

64. The Committee considered the placement of this adjudication. The print article had featured on pages 4 and 5, and the Committee therefore required that the adjudication should be published on page 4, or further forward, in the newspaper. The headline to the adjudication should make clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint, reference the title of the newspaper, and refer to the complaint’s subject matter. The headline must be agreed with IPSO in advance.

65. The adjudication should also be published online, with a link to this adjudication (including the headline) being published on the top third of the publication’s homepage for 24 hours; it should then be archived in the usual way. If the newspaper intends to continue to publish the online article, a link to the adjudication should also be published on the article, beneath the headline.

66. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as follows:

The family of John Chapman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication on article headlined “TRAGIC MISTAKE”, published on 3 April 2024.

The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required The Sun to publish this adjudication to remedy the breach of the Code.

On 1 April, John Chapman was killed in an airstrike in Gaza while working as an aid-worker. On 2 April, at around 1:30pm and before John Chapman’s parents had been informed of their son’s death, a reporter visited their property.

The complainants said that the reporter turned up outside the property and informed John Chapman’s parents that there had been an airstrike, and people had been hurt. The reporter subsequently entered the property – at their invitation – and asked further questions about John Chapman, while they were in a state of shock and confusion. The complainants - John Chapman’s wife and brother-in-law - said that, due to the reporter’s approach at the property, they then had to inform John Chapman’s parents of his death over the phone.

The complainants said that the interaction intruded into and added to their grief, exacerbated a distressing situation, and negated and undermined all efforts to sensitively deliver the news of John Chapman’s death to his parents.

The publication said sending reporters to visit family members of deceased individuals is not, in of itself, insensitive or indiscreet. It also said it was not unreasonable for it to assume that John Chapman’s family had been informed.

Regarding the interaction at the property, it said that, once its reporter had realised that John Chapman’s parents were unaware of his death, the reporter had sought advice. He had called the news desk, before entering the property, and it had been agreed that the reporter make polite conversation before leaving as soon as possible, without informing John Chapman’s parents of his death, as leaving immediately may have prompted further questions. It said it regretted that it had reached the property before the family, but that its reporter had tried to not reveal any further distressing information once aware of the situation.

The press should take care not to disclose news of a person’s death to the immediate members of their family. IPSO noted that, in this case, there was no official confirmation that the family had been informed – or indeed that Mr Chapman was deceased. Particular care should therefore have been taken when making the approach to the Chapman household.

The reporter encountered Mr Chapman’s father outside the property on arrival. It was evident from his demeanour, as conveyed by the publication’s recording of the interaction, that he was not in a state of distress as would likely have been the case had he been aware of his son’s involvement in the incident. At this point, it should have been evident to the reporter that there was at least a strong likelihood that the Chapmans were unaware of John Chapman’s death. This was then confirmed when, in the initial interaction, the reporter asked Mr Chapman’s father: “have you heard any news from him at all?”, to which he responded “no”.

The reporter had then contacted the news desk for guidance. IPSO wished to record its view that, at this stage, the reporter had acted properly and appropriately by stepping away from a sensitive situation, and seeking guidance on how to handle the situation. The reporter had then been advised, on the publication’s account, that he make polite conversation, but not reveal John Chapman’s death.

In IPSO’s view, the decision to direct the reporter to remain at the property in circumstances where the publication was aware that Mr Chapman was, or very likely was, deceased, and his parents were unaware of this, represented a clear breach of Clause 4 and was likely to cause significant distress, confusion, and intrusion. It made it likely that the reporter either would disclose information about Mr Chapman’s condition, or would be present when the family received distressing news about their son. It also led to a situation in which the reporter was drawn into conversations about Mr Chapman that were highly intrusive and caused the family further concern and upset.

The publication had said that the reporter was trying to make polite conversation before leaving as soon as possible. However, the reporter asked a number of specific questions regarding Mr Chapman. This demonstrated that the reporter was undertaking further inquiries rather than leaving the situation at the earliest opportunity.

Further, while the reporter did not state to the Chapmans that their son had been killed, he had disclosed information to the family about the circumstances of his death.

IPSO acknowledged that the reporter had found himself in a difficult situation. However, the decision to enter the property made it reasonably foreseeable, and even likely, that such a difficult situation would arise. While IPSO noted the publication’s concerns that leaving the property after the initial approach may have led to further questions, the magnitude of the potential harm that might have been caused was far lesser than what subsequently occurred: the parents of John Chapman being made aware, via an interaction with a reporter working for a national publication and without the appropriate support, that their son had been involved in an airstrike, which in fact had been fatal.

The Committee did not consider that the reporter’s decision to enter the property or the further interactions that occurred while he was in the property constituted a sympathetic or discreet approach. This was a breach of Clause 4. 

Date complaint received: 29/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/12/2024