03161-25 Humphreys v mylondon.news

Summary of Complaint

1. Daniel Humphreys complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mylondon.news breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article headlined “'Bad Cop' Met officer 'had lots of oral sex with domestic violence victim after 999 callout'”, published on 22 July.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on the complainant’s trial for two counts of misconduct in public office. The sub-headline read: “[the complainant] is accused of misconduct in public office over an affair with a domestic violence victim”. The article said the:

“relationship began with ‘flirty’ exchanges, then became sexual as the pair repeatedly met up to have sex around a year later, the court heard. This accounted for the first charge of misconduct in public office, while the second count arose from the alleged transfer of images and documents to the woman from the work computer without a policing purpose.”

3. The article was accompanied by a photograph of the complainant wearing a face mask, sunglasses and baseball cap, holding an umbrella while exiting court. There was also a second photograph of the complainant, showing him on a street, covering his face with the umbrella.

4. The complainant said the conduct of the reporter working on behalf of the newspaper breached Clause 3. He said the reporter filmed him as he left the court building, while stood approximately ten metres away. He said that, after he left the court building, the reporter ran after him, and the complainant held up his umbrella to shield himself. The complainant said this was what the second photograph in the article showed. He said the reporter then crouched down under the umbrella to take his photograph, while stood about one metre away. He said there was no physical contact,, and no words were exchanged during the incident.

5. The complainant said the interaction was highly intrusive, intimidating and unnecessary. He added that the journalist had not identified himself or requested permission to photograph him.

6. The complainant also complained under Clause 1 as the article omitted the fact that he was subsequently found not guilty of the alleged relationship. He said the article placed “disproportionate emphasis” on the charge for which he was acquitted, while giving “minimal attention” to the count for which he was convicted. He said this created a misleading impression of the outcome of the case.

7. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 4, given the alleged inaccuracy and the “emotionally charged context” of the article.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code, and disputed the complainant’s account of the interaction with the reporter. It said the reporter waited outside court to capture a photograph of the complainant leaving the courthouse, and that the first set of photographs were taken as the complainant left the court doorway. However, from experience, the reporter knew that the lighting was poor in this area – and that further pictures may therefore be required. As the reporter was familiar with the court, he noted the route that the complainant was walking and headed to a more open area in an attempt to obtain a clearer photograph of him. The publication disputed the reporter had run after the complainant, and said that the second set of photographs were taken as the complainant walked towards the reporter.

9. The publication said that – as the second set of photographs were taken - the complainant was holding a large umbrella. The reporter therefore crouched down and angled his camera to try and get a clearer photograph – in response, the complainant positioned the umbrella to block his face.

10. The publication noted that it was not in dispute that the complainant had not asked the photographer not to photograph him, and that as soon as the complainant used his umbrella to block his face, no further attempts or approaches were made by the reporter to photograph him. It said this did not constitute persistent or intimidating behaviour.

11. The publication added that all of the photographs were taken in an open public place where the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and the photographs were obtained to show the complainant’s likeness.

12. In response to the alleged breach of Clause 1, the publication said at the time the article was written, the complainant had not yet been acquitted of any charge. It said the article was therefore accurate at the time it was published.

13. It said it had published a follow up article on 30 July, which made clear that the complainant had been acquitted of "pursuing an inappropriate relationship with a woman who was in a vulnerable position."

14. Notwithstanding the above, the publication proposed – as a gesture of goodwill - to add the following update to the top of the article:

UPDATE: On [date of trial], Daniel Humphreys was cleared of the second MIPO charge relating to pursuing an inappropriate relationship with a woman who was in a vulnerable position. We are happy to make this clear.

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 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.

Findings of the Committee

15. The Committee noted that newspapers are generally entitled to photograph individuals in public areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, provided no request to desist from doing so has been made. The reporter was therefore entitled to photograph the complainant, and to take steps to ensure that the photograph of the complainant was clear and showed his likeness. The Committee did not consider, therefore, that photographing the complainant as he left court, or moving to a secondary position close to the court to get a clearer photograph, constituted harassment.

16. The Committee acknowledged that the complainant had used his umbrella to block his face. However, it was accepted that no words were exchanged between him and the reporter, and as such, no request to desist was made, or a request for the reporter to identify himself.

17. The Committee understood that the complainant considered the reporter crouching to obtain a photograph of him under his umbrella to be intrusive. However, it was accepted by the complainant that the reporter was a metre away at the time. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the reporter had intruded into the complainant’s personal space to the extent that would constitute harassment under the terms of Clause 3. This was particularly the case given that, once the complainant had moved the umbrella to block his face, the reporter desisted from attempting to take his photograph. Therefore, the Committee did not consider the reporter’s behaviour breached Clause 3.

18. The Committee turned to Clause 1. The Committee noted that the article was a report of court proceedings, and that – at the time the article was written – the case was ongoing, and the complainant had not yet been acquitted of a charge of misconduct in public office. In addition, the publication published a follow up article making clear he was acquitted of this charge, and further offered to update the article under complaint to make clear he was “cleared of the second MIPO charge relating to pursuing an inappropriate relationship with a woman who was in a vulnerable position”. As such, the Committee was content that the newspaper had taken care over the accuracy of the article, and it did not contain any inaccuracies. It was also content that the newspaper had – by publishing a follow-up article – put on record that the complainant had been acquitted of one of the charges against him There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

The Committee acknowledged that the article may have been upsetting for the complainant to read, however it was a report of a court case in which the complainant was a defendant. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the article related to the complainant’s grief or shock, and there was no breach of Clause 4.

Conclusions

19. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

20. N/A

Date complaint received: 31/07/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/12/2025