04498-24 Weir v mirror.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Elizabeth Weir complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 5 (Reporting of suicide), and Clause 14 (Confidential Sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “'Wonderful' dad sent wife final heartbreaking text moments before walking into the ocean”, published on 17 April 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on the death of the complainant’s husband, Ben Weir. It appeared under the sub-headline: “Ben Weir, 47, was seen entering the sea in Exmouth by a police search helicopter in September 2023 and rescue teams later pulled him from the water, but he died at the scene”. The article reported that Mr Weir had “sent a heartbreaking text message to his wife moments before taking his own life by walking into the sea, an inquest heard”. It stated that: “A Devon & Cornwall Police helicopter spotted 47-year-old Ben Weir walking along a beach in Exmouth, Devon, and entering the sea in September last year. Coastguard and RNLI crews were scrambled to the area and he was recovered from the water but despite the best efforts of the emergency services, passed away at the scene.”

3. The article also reported the contents of a text message the complainant’s husband had sent her prior to his death. In reporting on the contents of the text, the article referred to the complainant as “Elisabeth”.

4. The article also reported that during the inquest proceedings, the complainant “criticised the police and said they were ignoring her pleas to find her husband”. It reported that “[s]he wrote a police officer on the beach refused to speak to her on the phone and officers at her home similarly would not talk to her. She said she believed her husband’s death was ’"preventable’”.

5. The article also reported statements from the emergency services who had attended the scene:

“The officer stated that the helicopter was deployed to the area between [named beaches] as the missing person was thought to know the area well and may be there. […] He added that zooming in on the helicopter's camera he could see the man's clothes were wet and covered in sand. […] He saw the man walk towards and then into the water, fully clothed […].

The flight officer immediately called for the RNLI lifeboat and Coastguard to attend the scene as the police helicopter did not have any form of rescue capabilities such as a winch. The officer's statement noted how the man was swimming further and further out with his face down in the water adding he appeared to be ‘actively trying to drown himself’.”  

6. Finally, it reported:

“In conclusion, [the coroner] noted Mr Weir had no history of depression or low mood and there had been no noticeable change in his behaviour.  

However, […] she said she noted how he had walked into the water, swam out some distance and was seen to repeatedly put his face into the water. She also considered how he may have specifically chosen the location as he knew the area fairly well and ‘chose that particular location at that particular time because of the difficulty it would present for the emergency services in getting to him should they become aware of his location’.

As such she recorded a conclusion of suicide”.

7. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 5 because it was “too graphic”, and contained a “level of detail” which, she said, could give individuals ideas regarding suicide, and draw them to the particular location, time of day, and method which her husband used. In particular, she objected to the article reporting that her husband was “actively putting his head in the water and trying to drown himself”.

8. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 2 because it contained information about her and her family which she considered to be private, including the statements she had made to the police. She also stated that she had never given permission for her name to be reported.

9. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 4 because of the impact it had had on her family, and because it reported information she considered private. She stated that her family were grieving, and the article had made the situation worse by causing them to relive the day of her husband’s death. She also reiterated that the article was too graphic, and reported too much information.

10. The complainant also stated that the article breached Clause 1, as it referred to her as Elisabeth, not Elizabeth.

11. The complainant also stated that the article breached Clause 14 as she considered that it reported private information and was intrusive.

12. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning first to Clause 5, it said that the article was an accurate report of the inquest proceeding. It said that it considered it important to outline the evidence that demonstrated that the complainant’s husband’s actions were intentional, rather than being a result of misadventure or an accident. The publication noted that the article reported “particularly strong criticism” of the emergency services’ actions - it said, therefore, that it chose to report the chronology of what had occurred on that day, as well as the emergency services’ perspective of the events, in the interest of balanced reporting.

13 .The publication said that, given it would be generally understood by readers that walking out to sea when the tide is going out can be dangerous, the article did not report an unfamiliar or obscure method of suicide, or any excessive level of detail regarding the method used.

14. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 4. It referred to the public interest in reporting on inquest proceedings – it also said that the article did not include any gratuitous detail. The publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It stated that the reported information had been disclosed during the inquest – it was therefore entitled to report it.

15. Regarding Clause 1, the publication stated that it was a common spelling of the name, and the article had been based on matters spoken and heard in court, rather than written records. It said, therefore, this was a simple misspelling and not a significant inaccuracy.

16. In response, the complainant stated that the publication should have contacted her prior to the article’s publication, to give her the opportunity to discuss what would be appropriate to report. She also said the fact that police had disclosed the statements she made at the inquest did not mean they should have been reported.

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 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 5 (Reporting suicide)*

When reporting suicide, to prevent simulative acts care should be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method used, while taking into account the media's right to report legal proceedings.

Clause 14 (Confidential sources)

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

Findings of the Committee

17. The Committee wished to express its sincere condolences to the complainant and her family for their loss.

18. The complainant had complained that the article as a whole constituted excessive detail regarding her husband’s death – it included too much information regarding where and when her husband had died, and she also specifically objected to the inclusion of information she considered to be “too graphic”. The Committee noted the information reported in the article. This included the name of the beach in question, as well as information regarding problems with accessing the beach at certain times. The article also reported that her husband was seen “repeatedly [putting] his face into the water”, and “actively trying to drown himself”.

19. Clause 5 requires that, when reporting on suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive details of the method used, to prevent simulative acts. This must be balanced, however, against a publication’s right to report on legal proceedings – and the Committee had regard, therefore, for the context in which this information appeared.

20. The complainant had criticised the emergency services, stating that her husband’s death had been “preventable”, and the coroner’s conclusions referenced issues with the accessibility of the beach. In the Committee’s view, the information regarding the beach and its accessibility formed an important part of the inquest proceedings, and reporting it ensured an accurate reflection of both the criticism the emergency services had received and the further contextual information which explained the delays in their response. It also noted the article did not contain further information about the beach and its accessibility beyond what had been heard during the inquest.

21. The Committee also noted – as made clear in the coroner’s closing remarks - that information regarding the complainant’s husband’s actions at the beach was clearly relevant to the coroner’s decision of suicide, and it was important for the publication to report this to make clear that the verdict had been correctly reached. It was clear from the coroner’s remarks that the fact that the complainant’s husband may have chosen “that particular location at that particular time” indicated that the death was not accidental or due to misadventure, and the fact that he was seen repeatedly putting his head in the water also supported a verdict of suicide.

22. Further, while the Committee acknowledged that the publication of the article – and specific details regarding her husband’s actions - had caused the complainant concern and upset, it did not consider that the reference to her husband “actively” or “repeatedly” placing his face in the water was excessive detail as defined by Clause 5, where this was directly relevant to explaining the reasons for the coroner’s verdict and explained the reasons for the conclusion. There was no breach of Clause 5.

23. The Committee turned to Clause 4, starting with the complainant’s concerns that the article itself was not sensitive, was too graphic, and had caused her family grief. It had regard for the specific information reported in the article, and the context in which it appeared. The Committee again noted that the information had been heard during the inquest, and it had regard for the public interest in reporting on legal proceedings. The Committee, however, balanced this against the publication’s obligations under Clause 4.

24. In the Committee’s view, the article had been presented in a factual and non-sensational way – it did not consider that it made light of the circumstances of the complainant’s husband’s death, or the grief felt by his family at his death. Further, the Committee was also mindful that Clause 4 explicitly states that its provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings. The Committee again noted that it was important the article reported information which made clear that the complainant’s husband’s death was intentional, and the inquest verdict of suicide was correctly reached - this included his actions and the circumstances leading to his death, such as the text messages he had sent to the complainant, as well as his actions at the beach. Statements made by the emergency services – which included information regarding the complainant’s husband’s actions at the beach – also clearly formed a large part of the inquest proceedings.

25. In light of this, the Committee – while it appreciated the distress felt by the complainant - was satisfied that the article was not insensitive in breach of Clause 4.

26. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns that the article misspelt her name as Elisabeth. The Committee considered that this was a typographical error, which arose from how the complainant’s name would have been read aloud at the inquest. Although unfortunate, the Committee did not consider that this amounted to a lack of care taken over the article’s accuracy, or a significant inaccuracy in the context of the article as a whole. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

27. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2. Clause 2 is designed to ensure that people’s private and family lives are not intruded upon without justification – it is clear that, when determining whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy over information reported, the Committee will take into account the extent to which the information may already be in the public domain.

28. The Committee appreciated that the complainant objected to the reporting of information which she considered private regarding her husband’s death. It also noted that she may not have been informed that information disclosed in the inquest could be reported. In this case, however, the disputed information had been made public during the course of the inquest hearing, and was therefore already in the public domain, prior to the publication of the article. This was also the case with the complainant’s name – and the Committee recognised that an individual’s name is generally not something someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy over. The Committee did not consider, therefore, that the article represented an intrusion into the complainant’s private and family life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

29. Finally, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 14. It noted the complainant’s view that much of the reported information was confidential. However, Clause 14 relates to the moral obligation of journalists to protect their confidential sources of information, rather than to concerns about the publication of confidential information. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 14.

Conclusions

30. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

31. N/A

Date complaint received: 26/06/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/09/2024