02389-22 Williams v dailyrecord.co.uk
-
Complaint Summary
Llinos Williams, acting on behalf of herself and her daughter Rebeca Williams, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the following articles: An article headlined “Teaching assistant had sex with schoolboy and told him 'age is just a number'", published on 29th March 2022, an article headlined “Teaching assistant who had sex with schoolboy ‘bitterly regrets’ grooming him”, published on 7th April 2022.
-
-
Published date
5th January 2023
-
Outcome
No breach - after investigation
-
Code provisions
1 Accuracy, 3 Harassment
-
Published date
Decision of the Complaints Committee – 02389-22 Williams v dailyrecord.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Llinos Williams, acting on behalf of herself and her daughter Rebeca Williams, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the following articles:
· An article headlined “Teaching assistant had sex with schoolboy and told him 'age is just a number'", published on 29th March 2022.
· An article headlined “Teaching assistant who had sex with schoolboy ‘bitterly regrets’ grooming him”, published on 7th April 2022.
2. The headline of the first article was followed by the sub-heading: “Rebecca [sic] Williams, 21, avoided prison after ‘grooming’ and abusing a young boy, aged 15.” The article reported that the woman had “admitted [to] two offences of sexual activity with a boy of 15 and abusing a position of trust”. It reported that the woman had “groomed” the victim when “they began to message online” before she “sexually abused him” at her home address. It reported that the prosecutor told the court that “several of the messages must have been exchanged on school grounds”, with the judge saying there had been “grooming” and telling the woman: “You knew what you were doing. You were working up to engage in a sexual relationship with him. Some of the messages were carried out on school grounds which is an aggravating feature”.
3. The headline of the second online article was followed by the sub-heading: “Rebecca [sic] Williams was a teaching assistant when she started grooming a 15-year-old boy before they went on to have sex”. It stated that the woman “sent the boy flirty text messages before she took him back to her home and had sex with him”. It also reported the judge’s comments in relation to “grooming” and said that a “friend” of the woman “has revealed the convicted sex offender has been telling pals that she ‘regrets’ her actions”, according to a separate publication. It then stated that, according to another publication, “one close friend, who asked not to be identified, said: “Becky knows what she did was wrong and she bitterly regrets what happened now. She wishes she could turn the clock back but she knows she can’t. She is truly sorry for what she did. She has suffered very badly with depression as a result of losing her career and the court case. She has paid a high price for her mistake”.
4. The complainant said that the first article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to report her daughter’s present age. She said that her daughter was younger when the offences were committed, although she accepted that her daughter was an adult. She also said the article was inaccurate to report that her daughter had “groomed” and “abused” the child.
5. In relation to the second article, the complainant said this was inaccurate to report that her daughter had “sexually assaulted” the child. The complainant also said the quotes attributed to her daughter’s friends had been fabricated. Her daughter denied that she had confided in friends; she had only discussed the matter with her immediate family and did not have any close friends locally. The complainant also noted that one of the “friends” had described her daughter as “Becky”; her daughter did not call herself “Becky” and was instead known as “Beca” by friends.
6. The complainant also said that she and her daughter had received multiple unwanted approaches from journalists at their home, in breach of Clause 3. She said that two individuals had approached the family house on 29 March 2022, before she asked them to leave. She said that one of these individuals had claimed to be a courier delivering court documents and had presented her with a “calling card”. She said that she had shown this card to a police officer, who said that it was a journalist pretending to be a courier. She said that the other individual had parked nearby her home, taking photographs and had been “aggressive” when she requested that they leave. She also said that the police had completed “a trace” on the vehicle’s registration number and confirmed that this individual was a journalist.
7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said the articles were an accurate and fair summary of court proceedings against the complainant’s daughter. It said that the court heard the age her daughter was when she had committed the offences in question and provided a copy of the reporter’s contemporaneous notes to demonstrate this; this was a different age to that provided by the complainant. It also said that her specific age was insignificant: her daughter had legally been an adult when she committed the offences against the child. Further, it said that the year of the offences – and the age of the woman at this time – was omitted in order to minimise the risk of the victim being identified.
8. Nor did the publication accept that the first article was inaccurate or misleading to report that the complainant’s daughter had “groomed” the victim. The reporter’s notes showed that the judge had described the behaviour as such twice during proceeding. Further, it did not consider the article inaccurate or misleading to report that her daughter had “abused” the victim: her daughter had held a position of trust and responsibility at the school, and had abused that position when she had been found guilty of sexual offences with a minor in her charge.
9. In addition, the publication did not accept that the second article was inaccurate in the way the complainant suggested: the victim was 15 years old; her daughter had admitted and been found guilty of sexual offences with a minor in her charge and abusing her position; had been ordered by the court to register as a sex offender for 10 years and was banned from working with children. Further, the publication said that the second article was an accurate report of the comments made by sources to separate publications.
10. In relation to Clause 3, the publication did not accept that complainant’s allegations related to any of its journalists or individuals working on its behalf.
Relevant Code 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.
Findings of the Committee
11. The Committee first considered whether the first article was inaccurate or misleading in reporting the complainant’s daughter’s current age, rather than her age when the offences were committed. Whilst there was a dispute between the parties as to the daughter’s age when she committed the offences, the Committee did not consider her exact age to be material – the nature of the complainant’s offences had been accurately reported, namely that she had been an adult who held a position of trust when the offences had been committed. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
12. The complainant denied that the judge had said that her daughter had “groomed” the victim. The publication produced the reporter’s contemporaneous notes of the court proceedings, which included reference to the judge’s remarks and her comments on the “grooming” behaviour of the complainant’s daughter during sentencing. Given that the article reflected the reporter’s notes, there was no failure to take care over the reporting of the judge’s remarks. There was no breach of Clause 1.
13. The Committee next considered whether the first article was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s daughter had “abused” the victim. Where the complainant’s daughter had admitted to and been convicted of two offences of sexual activity with a child and abusing a position of trust, the Committee did consider that this represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, or a significant inaccuracy. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
14. Further, the Committee noted that the second article did not report that the complainant’s daughter had “sexually assaulted” the victim; rather, it reported that she had “sexually abused” them. In circumstances where the complainant’s daughter had been adult, in a position of trust, who had committed sexual offences against a child, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate or misleading to report that the woman had “sexually abused” the victim. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
15. In relation to the allegedly fabricated quotes which were referenced in the second article, the Committee noted that the complainant had not identified any particular inaccuracies within the quotes, rather they had questioned whether the claimed sources really existed. However, the article clearly attributed the quotes as anonymous ones drawn from articles in other publications and it was therefore clear that the sources of those quotations were not on record with the dailyrecord.co.uk. This did not absolve the publication of its obligation to take care to avoid publishing inaccurate information. However, the Committee noted that the comments did not appear to significantly differ from the daughter’s own position during court proceedings: she admitted the offences, she was no longer able to work in educational settings, and her mental health had been affected; she was regretful for her actions. Given this, the Committee considered that the newspaper had taken sufficient care in reporting the claims made and reporting these comments did not give rise to any significant inaccuracy requiring correction. There was no breach of Clause 1.
16. Finally, the Committee considered the concerns raised under Clause 3. The Committee’s task was to establish whether the newspaper under complaint had been responsible for the harassment, for example if the harassment had been carried out by a member of its staff or by an external contributor which it had engaged, such as an agency reporter or photographer. The Committee noted there was a dispute between the complainant and the publication as to the extent of contact between the parties over the relevant period. The complainant had not provided any information which suggested that the individuals who had spoken with her at her home on 29 March 2022 represented the publication or had identified themselves as representing the publication. The publication had denied that these individuals represented them. There were, therefore, no grounds to find that the individuals in question had represented the publication. There was no breach of Clause 3.
Conclusion(s)
17. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
18. N/A
Date complaint received: 01/04/22
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/12/22