02228-25 Moughton v Hull Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. Chelsea Moughton complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Hull Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article headlined “Woman 'waved weapon about' during brawl outside Hull pub”, published on 6 May 2025.

2. The article reported on court proceedings in which the complainant was the defendant, and referred to her as an “aggressive woman”. It went on to report that the complainant “had been drinking before she joined in with the fight but she suddenly drove off in her car before returning minutes later armed with the weapon, which she started ‘waving around’ during the violent scenes.” It also reported that “[a]nother woman was seen throwing a glass and she had been cautioned by the police for assault.”

3. The article also included the complainant’s street-level address, and reported that she had “recently got a job with a gas company”. The article also included a photograph of the complainant, outside of the court, facing away from the camera.

4. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format,

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to describe her as “an aggressive woman”. She also said the article inaccurately reported that “joined in with the fight.” She said she had not “joined” a fight; rather, she had been attacked.

6. The complainant added that the article had breached Clause 1 by reporting “[a]nother woman was seen throwing a glass and she had been cautioned by the police for assault.” She said that video evidence demonstrated that the other woman had thrown the glass directly at her.

7. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2 for the following reasons: it had included a photograph of her, and she had not consented to being photographed; it included her street-level address; and it mentioned details of her occupation.

8. The complainant said that a reporter acting on behalf of the publication had breached Clause 3. She said she had requested that the reporter - who had taken the photograph of her, included within the article – stop recording her and taking photographs of her, several times. She said that the reporter had continued to point his camera at her after she had made this request. The complainant provided video footage to support her position on this point. The video appeared to have been taken outside of the court and showed the reporter holding a mobile phone.

9. The complainant also said the publication breached Clause 3 as it had not removed her street-level address from the article when she had requested it do so. She also said the Clause had been breached because the article had led to her being harassed by members of the public.

10. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 4, as she had attended a wake on the day of the assault referenced in the article.

11. The complainant then said that the reporter had breached Clause 10, as she believed he had used a hidden camera while taking the photograph of her, and tried to hide the fact that he was photographing her.

12. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning first to the complaint under Clause 1, it said the article’s description of the complainant as an “aggressive woman” was a fair and accurate characterisation based on what was heard in open court. It said that the complainant’s actions - namely, that she was “involved in a fight, holding a weapon, and admitted to using threatening words or behaviour” - could be described as “aggressive.”

13. The publication did not consider it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had “joined in with the fight.” It said, given that the complainant had left the scene of the fight before returning to the same location, it was fair to report that she had “joined” the fight.

14. The publication also did not accept it had inaccurately reported that “[a]nother woman was seen throwing a glass.” It said that the complainant did not dispute that the glass was thrown by another person.

15. The publication did not accept it had breached the terms of Clause 2 by taking and publishing a photograph of the complainant outside court. It said that the photograph was taken in a public place where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. It added that the photograph was used to show the complainant’s likeness only, and therefore it did not require consent from the complainant to publish it.

16. With respect to the inclusion of the complainant’s street-level address, the publication did not consider this breached the terms of Clause 2. It said that the address published was a partial address, which was the “usual procedure” when reporting on court cases.

17. The publication also did not accept it had breached Clause 2 by reporting details of the complainant’s occupation. It said the article had reported what was heard in court on this point, and that this did not constitute private information.

18. The publication “vehemently disputed” the complainant’s allegations about the conduct of the reporter. It considered it was clear from the video provided by the complainant that the reporter was backing or turning away from her. The publication said it was, in fact, the reporter who was being followed and persistently pursued by the person who had recorded the video. It also said the video footage clearly showed that the reporter was not taking photographs or filming the complainant at that time the footage was recorded, and that he was simply holding his phone. It added there was no interaction between the complainant and the reporter, and that it was clear from the photograph of the complainant, that it was taken in an open public place, and that the complainant was not aware of the photograph being taken, given that her back was to the camera.

19. The publication did not consider that the remainder of the points raised by the complainant under Clause 3 engaged the Clause, as they didn’t relate to the behaviour of the reporter.

20. The publication did not accept it had breached Clause 4. It said it appreciated that the complainant had attended a wake on the day the incident had taken place, however it didn’t consider that the terms of Clause 4 were engaged by the complainant’s concerns.

21. Turning to Clause 10, the publication said that the reporter did not use clandestine devices or subterfuge and therefore the terms of this Clause had not been engaged.

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 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

22. The Committee first considered whether the article was inaccurate to describe the complainant as an “aggressive woman.” Given the complainant did not appear to dispute that she had admitted to using threatening words or behaviour, it did not consider it was inaccurate to describe the complainant as “aggressive.” As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

23. The Committee next considered whether the article inaccurately reported that the complainant “joined in with the fight.” Both parties did not appear to dispute that the complainant had left the scene of the fight and had later returned to the same scene, with a weapon. Given this, it did not consider it was inaccurate to report that the complainant “joined in with the fight.” There was therefore no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

24. The Committee turned next to whether the article inaccurately reported that “[a]nother woman was seen throwing a glass and she had been cautioned by the police for assault.” Both parties accepted that a glass had been thrown by another woman during the course of the incident. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

25. The Committee then considered whether photographing the complainant, and subsequently publishing that photograph, represented a breach of Clause 2. It was mindful of the complainant’s position that she had not consented to the photograph being taken. However, the Committee did not consider that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy while she was standing in a public location outside court. In such circumstances, consent was not required to photograph the complainant in this location, or to publish the photograph. In addition, the Committee noted that the photograph itself did not reveal anything private about the complainant; it simply showed her likeness. As such, there was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

26. It was not in dispute that the complainant’s street-level address and occupation had been referenced during open court proceedings. Given this, the Committee did not consider that this information was private. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 2 on these points.

27. The Committee turned next to the complainant’s Clause 3 complaint. The complainant had alleged that the reporter had continued to photograph and record her after she had requested he stop taking photographs. However, this did not tally with the video provided by the complainant to evidence this allegation. The video did not show the reporter taking photographs of the complainant or any other individual, and in fact appeared to show him attempting to move away from the person filming. Given this, the Committee did not consider that there was a basis to find that the reporter had photographed the complainant after a request to desist from doing so had been made. As such, there was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.

28. There is no obligation under Clause 3 to remove information from articles upon request, nor does the Clause concern alleged harassment by those who do not work on behalf of IPSO-regulated publications. In such circumstances, the remainder of the concerns raised by the complainant did not engage the terms of Clause 3, and there was no breach of the Clause on these points.

29. The Committee next considered whether the article had breached Clause 4. The Committee noted that the subject of the article was the complainant’s conviction, rather than the death of her relative. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the article related to a case of grief or shock. There was no breach of Clause 4.

30. The complainant had alleged that the reporter had taken photographs of her using a hidden camera, in breach of Clause 10. However, as the complainant had said she had seen the reporter taking a photograph of her, the Committee did not consider that there was any basis to find that the reporter had used a hidden camera, or engaged in subterfuge, when photographing the complainant outside the court. As such, there was no breach of Clause 10.

Conclusions

31. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

32. N/A

Date complaint received: 03/06/25

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/11/25