02005-25 A woman v Express & Star (West)

Summary of Complaint

1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Express & Star (West) breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “'Deeply dishonest' inmate pleads guilty to blackmailing a prison officer”, published on 3 May 2025.

2. The article opened by reporting: “A "deeply dishonest" prisoner has pleaded guilty to blackmailing a female prison officer at [Prison A]. [The named individual] […] pleaded guilty to blackmail whilst serving in [Prison A].” It subsequently reported that the individual had been charged with making an “unwarranted demand of money from [the named complainant] with menace. [The named complainant] was a G4S Prison Custody Officer and had worked at [Prison A and B]”. It also reported that the inmate would be sentenced in June, after the Judge “requested a victim impact statement from” the complainant.

3. The article also appeared online, the following day, under the headline: “’Deeply dishonest' prisoner pleads guilty to blackmailing a female prison officer.” The article was later amended – the publication was unable to supply a copy of how it originally appeared to IPSO, but was able to confirm that it originally featured the same wording as the print copy.

4. On 15 May, the complainant complained to the publication directly. Her email complained that the article reported her name and her job, read as if she was a “corrupt officer”, and inaccurately reported that she worked at Prison A. She also expressed concerns that she, or her employer, were not contacted directly prior to publication.

5. Upon receipt, and on the same day, the publication amended the article to remove the name of the complainant. It was also amended to report: “The charge levelled at [the inmate], was on "February 2, 2024, at Sandwell, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another. The officer is a G4S Prison Custody Officer and has worked at [Prison B]“.

6. Also on 15 May, the complainant complained to IPSO. She said that the article was misleading in breach of Clause 1 because she considered it reported that her role as a prisoner officer contributed to the offences committed against her. She said she was not employed at Prison A, where the inmate was held, but rather at Prison B. In addition, she said the offences were unrelated to her employment – she said the crime had related to a domestic matter, which had occurred in her personal life. She complained that, by reporting she worked at the same prison the inmate was held in, the article misleadingly suggested she was a “corrupt officer.”

7. The complainant also complained that the article breached Clause 2 by reporting her name and place of employment. She considered this irrelevant and unethical.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said that the article accurately reported on the complainant’s court hearing which, it said, was brief, and only provided the basic facts of the case. It stated that, while its reporter who attended the hearing had taken notes, it was later – regrettably – unable to find these.

9. The publication did accept that the article had been inaccurate to report that the complainant worked at Prison A – it accepted she worked at Prison B. It said the mistake arose as Prison B is part of the Prison A estate and sits immediately adjacent to it. It denied that this represented a significant inaccuracy, however. It accepted the two were separate entities, but said Prison B would typically be referred to as Prison A by local readers. It also stated that it had corrected its article as soon as it was informed of this inaccuracy by the complainant, on 15 May.

10. The publication disputed that the article suggested the complainant was a “corrupt officer”. It stated that the article made clear she was a victim, and that the headline was a factual statement based on the information heard in court – the complainant was a prison officer, and the other individual involved a prisoner.

11. The publication also commented that there had been no court order preventing the naming of the complainant – her name and employment had been given in court. On these grounds, it denied any breach of Clause 2. It added, however, that the specific details of the case had not been discussed in court – it would have anonymised the victim had it known the facts of the matter, and it amended the online article to remove her name as soon as the context was made clear to it.

12. In response, the complainant said the two prisons were separate entities. The complainant also said that as the hearing was only a plea hearing, the full facts had not been provided – in her view, the reporter should therefore have obtained the full information prior to the publication of the article. She also commented that she considered the article to be click-bait, based around her employment.

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.

Findings of the Committee

13. The Committee began with the complainant’s concerns that the article misleadingly suggested that the offences committed against her had occurred during the course of her employment.

14. The article reported that the complainant “worked at [Prison A and B]”. It did not appear to be in dispute that this was inaccurate – the publication accepted that she had, in fact, worked at Prison B. While the Committee acknowledged that the two prisons may form part of the same estate, as contended by the newspaper, this still constituted inaccurate information. The Committee also noted that the publication had been unable to supply its reporter’s notes from the court hearing – it had not been able to demonstrate, therefore, precisely what had been heard in court on this point.

15. The Committee therefore considered that the publication of the article represented a failure to take care on the part of the publication. It had inaccurately reported that the complainant was employed at the prison. In the specific circumstances of the defendant being an inmate, and the victim being a prison officer, the Committee considered this inaccuracy contributed to the article being misleading - it suggested to the reader that she had been blackmailed in the course of her employment, which did not appear to be the case. By failing to report what was heard in court, and not retaining notes, this amounted to a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

16. The Committee then turned to Clause 1 (ii). It considered that suggesting the offences occurred in the course of the complainant’s employment, particularly given they related to blackmail, was inherently significant – it could have significant reputational implications for the complainant. The Committee also considered that this significantly misled the reader as to the fact of the matter at hand.

17. Upon receipt of the direct complaint made by the complainant, the publication had amended the article to clarify that the complainant was employed at Prison B, as opposed to Prison A, and had removed the reference to the inmate pleading guilty “whilst serving in [Prison A]”. While the Committee considered that this alleviated the misleading impression given by the article, and appreciated that the publication had taken prompt action, it was clear that simply removing the information did not constitute a correction. In the case of a significant inaccuracy, a correction must be published to both identify the misleading information, and make clear the correct position. Given the publication had not published a correction this constituted a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

18. The Committee then turned to Clause 2. It did not appear to be in dispute that there were no reporting restrictions in place during the relevant court proceedings. Newspapers are entitled to report information heard in court – which, it appeared, both the complainant’s name and employment had – absent of reporting restrictions; this information was therefore already in the public domain prior to the publication of the article, and its publication did not represent an intrusion into the complainant’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

19. The complaint was partly upheld, under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

20. 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.

21. The Committee considered that the article inaccurately reported which prison the complainant worked at – in doing so, it had misleadingly, suggested that the complainant, a prison officer, had been subject to blackmail in the course of her employment. In reality, it was a personal matter. The Committee did acknowledge, however, that the publication had attempted to amend its reporting, albeit it had not published a correction.

22. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the article inaccurately reported the prison where the complainant worked, and misleadingly, suggested that the complainant had been subject to blackmail in the course of her employment as a prison officer. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that she worked at a different prison, and that the offence was unrelated to her employment, and was a personal matter.

23. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

24. As the article had appeared on page 2, the correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column – or on the same paper or further forward in the newspaper.

25. The online article had been amended to remove the reference to the complainant working at Prison A. However, the publication had not published a correction. The correction should, therefore, be published as a footnote to the online article.

26. 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: 15/05/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/12/2025