01939-25 A man and a woman v Leicester Mercury

Summary of Complaint

1. A man and a woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Leicester Mercury breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Banker at cars cruise was three times over limit”, published on 9 May 2025.

2. The article reported on a court case during which the male complainant pleaded guilty to driving over the drug limit. The other complainant was his ex-partner. The article reported: “A banker is set to lose his job after being found more than three times the legal drug-drive limit“. It also reported that the male complainant, “who works for Capital One, was with other car owners at the Rothley car cruise in Loughborough Road when police also there noticed his driving.”

3. It went on to report that the solicitor representing the male complainant “said his client had studied international business and finance at university and had last year begun a job with the bank Capital One, from which he earned about £1,800 a month after tax.” It further reported that the solicitor had said: “He now knows that job is at risk as he has to declare this conviction. He says he will be losing his job.’” It also reported that he said the male complainant “had only previously smoked cannabis and drank alcohol recreationally. But he said relationship difficulties were affecting him”.

4. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “Car cruise banker found more than three times legal drug-drive limit”; this version of the article was published on 4 May 2025. The online version of the article also reported that the solicitor “said” that the male complainant’s “own relationship was also in difficulties.”

5. The complainants said that the article breached Clause 1 because it reported that the male complainant “caught police officers’ eyes at a car cruising event when his driving looked suspect.” They said the vehicle had been stationary but facing the wrong direction when he was approached by police, and police had not approached him based on his driving. The complainants also said the article was inaccurate as it reported the male complainant’s solicitor had said in court that he “drank alcohol recreationally”. They said the solicitor did not use the term “recreationally” and that it was misleading for the article to do so. The complainants also said the article inaccurately reported that the male complainant “is set to lose his job”. They said this was presented as a fact without verification.

6. The complainants also said the article breached Clause 2 as it reported information about the male complainant including his full name, employer, salary, and educational background. They also said that the reference to “relationship difficulties [which] were affecting him” – and the online article’s reference to the complainants’ “own relationship [being] in difficulties” – was private information which should not have been published. The complainants said that, in publishing these details, the publication had identified them both to others within their community, and therefore breached their privacy.

7. The complainants also said the article breached Clause 4. They felt the article lacked sympathy or discretion, as it included a number of identifying details. They said that the article’s publication had had a significant negative impact on the male complainant’s mental health.

8. The complainants then said the article breached Clause 9 as it included comments made in court in relation to the male complainant’s personal relationships, The complainants said this identified the female complainant, without her consent, in relation to a crime he had committed. The complainants also said that the article identified the male complainant’s parents in breach of this Clause.

9. The publication did not accept that the article breached the Code. Turning first to Clause 1, it said the claim that the male complainant “caught police officers’ eyes at a car cruising event when his driving looked suspect” was supported by the reporter’s contemporaneous court notes. It provided these notes, which said: "Police noticed [defendant's] car in car cruise - organised. Rothley, Leicester. The defendant moving wheel. When they spoke to him they noticed vehicle had warning. They smelled cannabis on him" The publication also said this claim was also supported by the charge sheet, which it provided, which stated he “drove a motor vehicle […] when the proportion of a controlled drug […] exceeded the specified limit.”

10. The publication also did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that the solicitor said the male complainant “drank alcohol recreationally.” The publication said that, although the term “recreationally” was not specifically used in court by the solicitor, the reporter’s court notes showed that the solicitor had said the male complainant "only ever used alcohol and drugs... no issues with". It said the term “recreationally” was used in order to reflect that the complainant’s consumption of drugs and alcohol was recreational and not related to substance abuse issues. It considered this to be a suitable and accurate description of what had been said in court on this point.

11. The publication did not accept that the article breached Clause 1 by reporting that the male complainant “is set to lose his job”. It said this was based on comments made by the defence solicitor, who commented in court: “He now knows that job is at risk as he has to declare this conviction. He says he will be losing his job”. The publication provided the reporter’s contemporaneous court notes to support its position on this point. These read: “he says he will be losing his job”.

12. Turning to Clause 2, Clause 4 and Clause 9, the publication said that the information under complaint had been heard in open court and was not subject to reporting restrictions. Therefore, it said it was entitled to report this information, and it did not accept that in doing so it had breached the Code.

13. The complainants acknowledged that it the solicitor had said in court that the male complainant used alcohol and drugs. However, they said the use of the word “recreationally” was a distortion.

14. The complainants acknowledged that the comments made about their relationship had been heard in open court. They said, however, that the male complainant had provided this information to his solicitor in confidence and was distressed when it was used in court as part of his mitigation plea. They therefore still considered that the publication of these comments, which pertained to difficulties within a private relationship, were in breach of Clause 2.

15. The complainants also said that, because the article omitted details of the male complainant’s mental health difficulties, which had been referenced in open court, it lacked sympathy. This, they said, was a further breach of Clause 4 of the Code.

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 9 (Reporting of Crime)

i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.

ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children under the age of 18 who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

iii) Editors should generally avoid naming children under the age of 18 after arrest for a criminal offence but before they appear in a youth court unless they can show that the individual’s name is already in the public domain, or that the individual (or, if they are under 16, a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult) has given their consent. This does not restrict the right to name juveniles who appear in a crown court, or whose anonymity is lifted.

Findings of the Committee

16. The Committee first considered the claim that the male complainant “caught police officers’ eyes at a car cruising event when his driving looked suspect.” It noted the complainants’ position that this was inaccurate as the car had been stationary at the time the male complainant was approached by police and he had not been approached due to concerns over his driving – but rather, because his car was facing the wrong way. This, however, did not mean that police had not been suspicious of his driving, prior to him parking his car in the wrong direction. In addition, the publication had been able to provide the male complainant’s charge sheet, which stated that he “drove motor vehicle with a proportion of a specified controlled drug above the specified limit”. Therefore, it was clear that the charge reported on in the article related to concerns over the complainant’s driving. For this reason, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate in the manner alleged by the complainant, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

17. The Committee next considered the article’s claim that the solicitor had stated in court that the male complainant “’drank alcohol recreationally”. The Committee noted the complainants’ position that the solicitor had referred to the complainant drinking alcohol casually, but had not used the specific term “recreationally” – and so the claim was distorted. However, given it was not in dispute that the complainant’s use of alcohol was casual and not linked to any substance issues, the Committee considered that the publication was entitled to use its editorial discretion to describe the usage as “recreational”, and doing so did not mean that the article was an inaccurate summary of what was heard in court. The Committee did not find a breach of Clause 1 on this point.

18. The Committee then turned to the claim that the male complainant was “set to lose his job”. The Committee noted that the publication had been able to provide the reporter’s contemporaneous court notes, which stated: says he will be losing his job”. Where the publication had been able to with these notes - that this was a claim made in court by the solicitor, the Committee was satisfied that care had been taken over the accuracy of the claim, and that it was not a significantly inaccurate or misleading report of what had been heard in court. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.  

19. The Committee next turned to the Clause 2 and Clause 4 elements of the complaint. The Committee noted that it was not in dispute that the male complainant’s full name, employment history, educational background and comments about his relationship had been heard in open court and were not subject to reporting restrictions. In accordance with the principle of open justice, newspapers are generally entitled to report information that has been disclosed in open court absent of a reporting restriction. In addition, the terms of Clause 4 make clear that it should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings. The Committee noted the complainants’ position that the article lacked sympathy and discretion where it omitted to mention the male complainant’s mental health difficulties. However the Committee considered that as Clause 4 does not specify that publications must include all details heard in court cases. Therefore, the Committee did not consider the publication of these details represented an intrusion into the complainants’ private lives or an intrusion into their grief or shock. There was no breach of Clause 2 or Clause 4.

20. Clause 9 states that relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story. The Committee noted the complainants’ concern that the article breached Clause 9 as it identified the female complainant. However, the Committee noted that at no point did either version of the article name the female complainant – in fact, there were no details about her within the article, apart from the fact that she had at one point been in a relationship with the complainant. It considered that where the details of the male complainant’s relationship had been heard in court as part of his mitigation, they were genuinely relevant to the story. As this information was not subject to reporting restrictions, in with the principle of open justice the publication had the right to report them. There was no breach of Clause 9.

21. The complainant had also said that the article breached Clause 9 by identifying the male complainant’s parents. However, as the complainants were not acting on behalf of the parents, with their knowledge and consent, the Committee could not consider this aspect of complaint.

Conclusions

22. The complaint was not upheld.  

Remedial action required

23. N/A

Date complaint submitted: 09/05/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/07/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant 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.