Ruling

04424-15 A woman v Daily Record

    • Date complaint received

      8th September 2015

    • Outcome

      No breach - after investigation

    • Code provisions

      14 Confidential sources, 3 Harassment

·   Decision of the Complaints Committee 04424-15 A woman v Daily Record

Summary of complaint 

1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Record had breached Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Blind 7/7 bombings survivor reveals how she was forced to flee Scotland over stalking terror”, published on 7 July 2015. 

2. The article was an interview with the complainant which was published on the anniversary of the 7 July 2005 bombings. It reported that she had left London following the attacks, and had now had to move again as she had been the victim of stalking. 

3. The story had initially been published in another newspaper; that article was the subject of a separate complaint to IPSO. The complainant said that, prior to publication of the initial article, she had been contacted by a freelance journalist, a man with whom she had previously worked, who wanted to interview her; they arranged a telephone call. The complainant said that during the call they discussed her experiences of the bombings; the fact that she was being stalked and had had to move home a number of times; and her career. She said that she had asked that no details relating to her being stalked be published; those details were “between them”. The complainant said that she had also asked that her current location not be revealed, in order to protect her safety; this omission had been agreed by the journalist. 

4. About an hour after the interview the journalist rang the complainant to ask if she had reported the stalking matter to the police; she said that she told him during this conversation that the details relating to her stalking were private. Five hours later she emailed the journalist to say that she had been thinking about the conversation and was concerned about the inclusion in the article of any reference to her being stalked. The journalist replied saying that the story had been written and submitted to publications, and it included that the reason why the complainant had moved was that she was being stalked. He said that his understanding was that the complainant had requested that nothing in the article reveal where she was living now, and he had ensured that that was the case. The complainant acknowledged in correspondence with IPSO that it was clear from the journalist’s recollection of the conversation that he had not heard her request. The journalist told her that it was too late to remove the story from the next day’s newspaper. 

5. The newspaper said that it had not received the story from the freelance journalist the complainant had spoken to, but had followed up a version which had appeared in a different newspaper. As the complainant had been quoted in the article the newspaper assumed that she had co-operated with it. It noted that the article had not identified the complainant’s current place of residence, but said that if it had known that the complainant had not wanted information about her being stalked to be included in the article, it would have omitted it. It said that it did not believe that the fact that the complainant was being stalked was private information. It said that the complainant had spoken about the fact that she was being stalked during a speech at a conference in 2015, as she called for unions to increase measures to protect women in the entertainment industry. An article about that speech had been published on the website of a specialist newspaper. However, in light of the concerns raised by the complainant, the newspaper apologised to her; removed the article from its website; and said that it was examining its protocols around following up stories from other newspapers to try and avoid a similar situation occurring again. 

Relevant Code Provisions

6. Clause 3 (Privacy) 

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. 

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant’s own public disclosures of information. 

Clause 14 (Confidential sources) 

Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information. 

The public interest 

4. The Regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so.  

Findings of the Committee

7. The Committee understood that the complainant was in a vulnerable position, and that she was concerned for her safety. 

8. The Committee had already established, separately, that the initial article in the other newspaper did not raise a breach of the Editors’ Code. That decision informed its consideration of the complaint against the Daily Record. 

9. The initial conversation had been clearly distinguished as an interview for publication, and the journalist was someone with whom she had previously worked. The Committee noted the complainant’s acceptance that the journalist had not acknowledged her request, and it was clear that there had been no specific agreement to exclude details about the stalking from the article. In addition, the information was already in the public domain following the complainant’s conference speech. The article under complaint had not given any indication of the complainant’s current place of residence, and so the Committee did not consider that the newspaper’s actions had compromised the complainant’s safety. The Committee found that the article did not represent an unjustified intrusion into the complainant’s private life; the complaint under Clause 3 was not upheld. 

10. There was no suggestion that an agreement had been made that the complainant be treated as a confidential source; there was no breach of Clause 14. 

Conclusions

11. The complaint was not upheld. 

Remedial Action Required

N/A 

Date complaint received: 13/07/2015

Date decision issued: 08/09/2015