01929-25 Kennedy v The Belfast Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Kevin Kennedy complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Belfast Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in: an article headlined “NI solicitor: stalker had me living in fear/ Stalker avoids prison after conviction for harassing solicitor”, published on 3 May 2025; and an article headlined “More support is needed for those who find themselves at the receiving end of unwanted attention due to their work”, published on 5 May 2025.

2. The first article, which appeared on the front page before continuing on pages 8 and 9, reported that a solicitor was “calling for greater support for legal professionals on the ‘front line’ after […] an eight-year campaign of harassment” against her, perpetrated by the complainant. A photograph of the complainant appeared on the front-page, accompanied by a caption that said “was handed a suspended sentence for stalking”. The article’s front-page standfirst read: “’Six weeks after I had a baby he was following me,’ says victim’”.

3. Pages 8 and 9 included a further headline which read: “Stalker avoids prison after conviction for harassing solicitor”. The article reported that the complainant “received a suspended sentence and restraining order” and was “convicted of harassing” the solicitor “on dates between July 2022 and February 2023”.

4. The article reported comments from the solicitor “speaking outside the court”, and “after the hearing”. It reported the following comments from the solicitor:

“If I was walking down a road and he saw me, he would make a point of turning the car around. He would get out, he would point [...]’

As well as selling her home, [the solicitor] said her family also sold their holiday home because she ‘just didn’t feel safe there any more’.

‘Six weeks after having a baby he followed me off the beach.’”

5. The article then reported that:

“I got an injunction and police warned him on numerous occasions to stay away from where I live, but he repeatedly breached it.’”

6. The first article under complainant also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “NI Solicitor opens up on ordeal as stalker avoids prison: ‘Six weeks after having a baby, he followed me off the beach’”.

7. A link to the article was also published on The Belfast Telegraph’s X page, with the caption “Solicitor opens up after stalker avoids prison: ‘Six weeks after having a baby, he followed me off the beach’”.

8. The second article, which appeared on page 18, was a comment piece. It used the example of the complainant to discuss the writer’s view on “the current gaps that exist when it comes to the protection of frontline professionals”. It said that the complainant was “found guilty […] of harassing” the solicitor, and after appeal “was once again found guilty of harassing”. The complainant was also described as a “man who stalked a solicitor who represented a woman against him in court”. It also said: “it is only when there are consequences for stalking, harassment and threatening behaviour that bullies such as Kennedy will learn”.

9. The article also reported that the solicitor “was forced to sell her home“ and that she had “described how, six weeks after having a baby, Kennedy followed her off the beach”.

10. The second article included a photograph of the solicitor with a caption which stated she “was stalked by” the complainant.

11. The second article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “Disturbing case of Belfast solicitor stalker will have a chilling impact on women in frontline roles”.

12. The complainant said that both articles were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said it was inaccurate for the articles to refer to him as a “stalker”, and to report that he had “stalked” the solicitor. He said this was the case as his conviction was for harassment – a separate offence under UK law.

13. The complainant said that articles were also inaccurate as they contained a number of allegations which had either not been heard in court or had been dismissed by the court but were presented as fact. The complainant said the court had made only three findings against him: that he was present at a family fun day which the solicitor had also attended; that he was present outside her office on one occasion; and that he had been present in the same street as her home.

14. The complainant said that it was inaccurate to report that he had breached an injunction obtained against him by the solicitor after warnings from the police. He also said that it was inaccurate to report that he had followed the solicitor from the beach – he said this allegation had been dismissed by the court. The complainant said that it had not been heard in court that he had loitered outside the solicitor’s home for three hours, that he had turned his car around to follow her or that he had “pointed” at her. The complainant also disputed that the complainant’s home and family holiday property had been sold as a result of his behaviour, as these claims had not been proven in court.

15. The complainant expressed concerns that the journalist who wrote the articles only attended his sentencing, rather than the full trial.

16. The complainant also said describing him as a stalker intruded into his private life in breach of Clause 2. He also considered the publication of the articles to be harassment, in breach of Clause 3, as well as an intrusion into his grief or shock in breach of Clause 4.

17. The publication did not accept that either article breached the Code. It said that both articles made clear the complainant was convicted in relation to a harassment charge, and the publication was satisfied that the references to him as a “stalker” were justified, considering the evidence heard by the Court and the subsequent restraining order imposed against him. It said that the articles detailed the nature of the complainant’s conduct against the victim, and made clear the basis for its characterisation of the complainant.

18. With regard to the individual points the complainant had disputed, the publication said that the first article was not solely a report of the court case: whilst it included some information which had been heard in court, it also included statements the solicitor had made outside of court. It considered that the article clearly delineated between the court’s findings and the solicitor’s personal account of what had happened to her.

19. The publication said it had not attended the full trial, but had attended the sentencing. However, it was not able to provide any notes on what was heard at the hearing. The publication also said it had engaged in extensive discussions with the solicitor, but again was not able to provide any contemporaneous notes of these discussions, as they were added directly into the copy of the article.

20. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication provided a memo from the solicitor who had been the victim in the case, which was made in response to the complaint. The memo set out her recollection of what she had said in court while giving evidence against the complainant. This included that he loitered outside her office; followed her to a beach; had turned his car around to follow her; that he had stood outside her home for three hours; that she sought an injunction with an exclusion zone whilst he awaited prosecution; and that the complainant continued to be seen outside her home after this time, which had been reported to the police.

21. The publication said it had taken care to present the solicitor’s account of the complainant’s conduct and – in relation to its reporting of the crime for which the complainant had been convicted – it was entitled to rely upon the victim as a source of information.

22. The publication did not consider that the other Clauses cited by the complainant had been breached.

23. The complainant noted that the memo provided by the publication had been written after the publication of both articles. He also said the memo contradicted the victim’s original statement to the police and did not accurately state what had been said in court. The complainant said he did not believe that the article distinguished the solicitor’s views from the court’s findings. He added that there was no reference to stalking mentioned in court, and that the court had only considered whether his conduct over a seven-month period amounted to harassment.

24. During IPSO’s investigation, the process was placed on hold to allow the complainant to apply for a court transcript. It was then reopened, and the complainant provided a 13-minute recording, which he said was the judge’s comments from his sentencing hearing. The complainant said this had been provided by the court. He also provided a transcript of the recording he had prepared himself.

25. The transcript and recording provided by the complainant set out that the judge had concerns with the complainant’s behaviour between July 2022 and February 2023, but that the victim provided “helpful background relevant to her interactions with the appellant”, which fell outside of this period. The judge said it was “against that background that I consider the course of conduct”.

26. The publication said it had significant concerns about the veracity of the document, given that the complainant had initially stated he was applying for a full court transcript and had instead provided a partial, unverified transcript he had written himself. However, it noted that, even within this transcript the Judge was recorded as saying: “I consider that [the solicitor is] telling the truth, that she's an honest witness, that her recollections are accurate and that her recognition of the appellant is accurate”; and that “When I contrast her evidence with the appellant's, I don't accept that the appellant is telling me the truth”.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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.

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.

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.

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.

Findings of the Committee

27. The Committee wished to be clear from the outset that its decision would be limited to the role of the newspaper and whether the articles breached the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice. It was not the role of the Committee to re-consider matters already decided on by the courts, nor decide on the veracity of what the solicitor had said – either in court or afterwards.

28. The Committee was significantly concerned by the lack of contemporaneous notes to support the articles’ reporting of both the sentencing hearing and the solicitor’s comments. The Committee reminded the publication of the importance of taking and retaining contemporaneous notes in order to demonstrate it has fulfilled its obligation to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information under Clause 1 of the Code.

29. The Committee first considered the references in the articles to the complainant having “stalked” the solicitor, and the description of him as a “stalker”. The Committee noted that both articles explicitly reported that the complainant had either been “convicted of” or “found guilty” of harassing the solicitor. It was not in dispute that the complainant had been convicted of, and had been given a suspended sentence for, harassing the solicitor. In these circumstances, and where the specific offence for which the complainant was found guilty was made clear in both articles, the Committee did not consider it inaccurate for the articles to use the colloquial term “stalker” to describe the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

30. The Committee then considered the caption to the photograph in the first article which said that the complainant “was handed a suspended sentence for stalking solicitor [name]”. It was not in dispute that the complainant had been convicted of harassing the solicitor, rather than for stalking. The Committee, therefore, found that the publication had not taken care to publish accurate information in breach of Clause 1 (i). Given the importance of accurately reporting the offences for which defendants in criminal proceedings are found guilty, a correction was required. The publication had not offered a correction on this point in breach of Clause 1 (ii).

31. The Committee noted that the articles reported both on the complainant’s sentencing hearing and on comments which had been made by the solicitor about the complainant’s alleged conduct. The first article made clear that the solicitor was “speaking outside the court” and “after the hearing” and the article did not report that the allegations she made outside court had been considered by the court or that the court had made findings in respect of the claims. In reporting an individual’s account, the Committee also recognised the inherent difficulty of verifying claims made about events which were said to have occurred many years in the past, particularly in circumstances where it was alleged that complaints made had not been appropriately dealt with by the authorities. 

32. The Committee considered the first article’s claim that the complainant had repeatedly breached an injunction which had been obtained by the solicitor despite warnings from the police. The Committee considered that this claim was presented as established fact and that it was verifiable. However, it noted that the publication had not taken any steps to verify the information before the article’s publication; for example, by contacting the court to determine whether the complainant had been found to have breached the injunction or the police to confirm whether they had warned the complainant in the manner described.

33. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, the complainant had provided a transcript of the Judge’s sentencing remarks in which he had said that there was “no evidence available […] to conclude that the [complainant] was warned by police not to be in the street”. While the Committee acknowledged the publication’s concerns regarding the veracity of the transcript, it considered that on the balance of probabilities that this was a reliable record of the comments made by the Judge. 

34. The publication had provided a memo prepared by the solicitor after the article’s publication in which she explained the evidence she had given in court. Part of the evidence she gave was that, despite an injunction she had sought, the complainant continued to be seen outside her home and that this had been reported to the police. However, the Committee noted that this fell short of demonstrating that the complainant had been found to have breached the injunction following warnings given by the police, and that there was a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article in breach of Clause 1 (i).

35. Reporting that the complainant had breached an injunction was clearly a serious matter. The inaccuracy was therefore significant and required correction. No correction was offered and there was, therefore, a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

36. The Committee considered the claim in the articles that the complainant had followed the solicitor from the beach, which the complainant said was an allegation which had been dismissed by the Judge. The Committee noted that the transcript of the Judge’s sentencing remarks provided by the complainant made no reference to this incident. The Committee also noted that this incident was clearly presented as part of the solicitor’s account of the complainant’s alleged conduct which she had given outside court and appeared as a quote from the solicitor in the first article and was reported as a description given by the solicitor in the second article. In these circumstances, the articles did not report that the claim had been established as fact during the proceedings. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

37. The Committee turned to the claim in the first article that the complainant had loitered outside the solicitor’s home for three hours, which the complainant said had never been mentioned or proven in court. The Committee noted that the article had not reported that this allegation had been heard in court or established as fact.Instead, it was referenced as part of the solicitor’s account of the complainant’s alleged conduct, appearing as a quote from the solicitor whilst speaking outside court. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

38. The Committee next considered the claim in the first article that the complainant had turned a car around to follow the solicitor and that he had pointed at her, which the complainant said was not raised in court. The Committee noted that the article had not reported that this allegation had been raised in court. It was presented as part of the solicitor’s account of the complainant’s alleged conduct, appearing as a quote from the solicitor whilst she had been speaking outside court. The article did not report the claim as established fact and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

39. Both articles reported that the solicitor had been forced to sell her home, and the first article reported a family holiday home had also been sold. Neither article reported that the court had found that the properties had been sold as a result of the complainant’s behaviour, and the complainant was not in a position to know why she had sold her properties. Given this, the Committee did not consider that reporting that the solicitor had felt forced to sell property due to the complainant’s behaviour was inaccurate, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

40. The complainant had said that describing him as a “stalker” intruded into his private life. Aside from the breaches of accuracy noted above, the article was a report into the public court case of the complainant and the solicitor’s account of the criminal activities he had committed against her. The complainant did not have an expectation of privacy over this account, nor the information made public as part of the court case. There was no breach of Clause 2.

41. The complainant considered the publication of the articles to be a breach of Clause 3 and Clause 4. The Committee did not consider that the publication of two articles about the complainant’s court case to amount to harassment. Furthermore, the Committee made clear that Clause 4 referred to a personal experience of grief or shock – it does not apply to those who had committed a crime that was then reported on. There was no breach of either Clause 3 or Clause 4.

Conclusions

42. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

43. 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.

44. The Committee found that the first article under complaint inaccurately reported that the complainant had repeatedly breached an injunction obtained by the solicitor, where the publication had not been able to demonstrate that this was the case. The allegation had been attributed to a victim of the complainant’s criminal behaviour, which therefore went some way to mitigate the effect of any inaccuracy. The Committee had also found that a caption to a photograph in the print version of the article inaccurately identified the offence for which the complainant had been convicted, albeit that the articles were accurate on this point. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy.

45. The online correction should acknowledge that the allegation had not been proven in court, and that it had not been able to substantiate the article’s claim on this point. The print correction should do the same, and additionally make clear that the complainant was convicted or harassment and not stalking.

46. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. With regard to the print version of the article, as the inaccuracy had appeared on page 8, the correction should appear on page 8 or further forward. With regard to the online version of the article, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction should be published as a footnote.

47. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 08/05/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/03/2026

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The publication 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.