04832-24 The family of Katie Simpson v Sunday Life

Summary of Complaint

1. The family of Katie Simpson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Sunday Life breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “EX-PUBLIC JOBS CHIEF BACKS KATIE COVER-UP CRONY WEB OF LIES”, published on 9 June 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on pages 8-9 of the newspaper – was about Katie Simpson, who was murdered by Jonathan Creswell in August 2020. The article was published after three women pleaded guilty to separate charges relating to the obstruction of justice relating to the murder – but prior to the women’s sentencing.

3. The article included quotes from Ms Simpson’s mother’s victim impact statement. It quoted portions of the statement detailed her thoughts and feelings about seeing her daughter in hospital, and the impact of being told her daughter had supposedly taken her own life. It also described the shock and pain she felt at finding out Creswell had murdered her daughter, and her sadness, anger and confusion at the other women’s connection to the crime.

4. The article also quoted from Ms Simpson’s sister’s victim impact statement. In this statement, she described how insulting it was that the three women had been in her home knowing they had “done nothing” to prevent Ms Simpson’s murder.

5. The article also reported on the character reference for one of the convicted women, written by a former public appointments commissioner. In the reference, the former commissioner said the woman had been Ms Simpson’s “’closest and beloved friend’ but became embroiled in something ‘far beyond her understanding’”. The article reported the commissioner “added [the convicted woman] had enjoyed ‘an innocent upbringing’ and had been a friend of her family for more than 20 years.”

6. The complainants said the article had reported on the victim impact statements in a manner which breached Clause 4. The family said some parts of the victim impact statements were due to be heard in court, and would, at this point, have entered the public domain. However, they said the article containing extracts from the statements had been published five days prior to when they were due to be heard at court, and without any warning to the family or the opportunity to prepare themselves emotionally for the impact of having the statements become public. Additionally, the family said parts of the statement from Katie’s sister and parts of the statement by Katie’s mother were not read out during court proceedings and therefore would not have entered the public domain if not for the article’s publication. The family said seeing the statements published “out of the blue and without warning” had caused them significant stress and shock. They also said that the publication of the victim impact statements by the newspaper had led to the three women’s sentencing being postponed by two weeks.

7. The complainants also said that the article had breached Clause 2 by publishing the statements prior to the hearing; they considered this intruded into the family’s privacy. They also questioned how the reporter had obtained this information in advance of the hearing, given the victim impact statements “were to be for the eyes of the judge in the case, the legal teams involved in the case, and no-one else”.

8. The complainants also said that publishing the commissioner’s character reference prior to the hearing also amounted to a breach of their privacy, as this information was not in the public domain at the time of the article’s publication. They said that this information should not have been published until the court decided it was appropriate to do so.

9. The publication did not accept it had breached Clause 4. It said Clause 4 makes clear its provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings. It said it did not accept that fair and accurate reporting on the evidence heard, or due to be heard, in court could breach the Clause.

10. It also did not accept that it had any obligation to warn the family that the victim impact statements would be published. It argued when reporting on court proceedings it would be unworkable for the media to seek to identify any potentially impacted parties, and to notify them in advance of articles that may relate to those court proceedings.

11. The publication said the full statements were considered by the court and should therefore be available to the public as part of the open administration of justice – regardless of whether the full statements had actually been read out during proceedings. The publication accepted the victim impact statements were not in the public domain at the time of the article’s publication. However, it said it was “entirely satisfied” that all of the relevant witness statements were made available to the court and were going to become public at the sentencing on 9 June, 5 days before they were due to be heard by the court on 14 June. It said the family had not requested any restriction preventing any part of the statement being reported.

12. The publication said the victim impact statements had been referenced by the judge in his sentencing remarks – though the entire statements had not been quoted in court. It provided the judge’s remarks to IPSO.

13. The publication did not accept publishing the victim impact statements had intruded into the family’s privacy, as it said the information was about to be referred to in open court and had been published in the public interest. The publication also did not accept reporting on the character reference given by the former commissioner was intrusive. It said the reference was information that the public was entitled to know as part of the administration of justice.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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.

Relevant IPSO Regulations

8. The Regulator may, but is not obliged to, consider complaints:

(a) from any person who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors' Code; or

(b) where an alleged breach of the Editors' Code is significant and there is substantial public interest in the Regulator considering the complaint, from a representative group affected by the alleged breach; or

(c) from a third party seeking to correct a significant inaccuracy of published information. In the case of third party complaints the position of the party most closely involved should be taken into account.

Findings of the Committee

14. The Committee first wished to extend its condolences to the family of Ms Simpson for the distressing circumstances surrounding this complaint.

15. The Code protects the right of publications to report material in the public domain, and there is a general presumption that material heard in court will become public. The right to report on information which becomes or will become public through court proceedings is strong but not absolute. This was a highly unusual case where the timing of the disclosure of material from court was relevant to the Committee’s consideration.

16. The Committee considered whether the publication of the victim impact statements intruded into the family’s grief or shock, in breach of Clause 4. Ms Simpson’s mother and sister had submitted the statements on the basis that they could be referred to by the judge during open court proceedings – and parts of the statements were indeed referred to by the judge in their sentencing remarks. They accepted when they had submitted their statements, they had not requested any part of the statements were withheld from the court. While the statements were personal and referenced extremely sensitive matters, they were prepared in the knowledge that they could become public. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider publishing parts of the statements, in and of itself, represented an intrusion into the family’s grief or shock.

17. In regards to the timing of the publication of the statements, the Committee acknowledged it was distressing that they had been made public six days earlier than expected. However, the statements were due to become public imminently and the publication did not reveal any information which the family had not already disclosed with the understanding it could become public. Further, court dates are subject to change, and the timing of the disclosure of the information would not have been within the family’s control, where the statements were due to be released via the court. The Committee also considered the early publication in the context of the timeline of the events of the story as a whole; Ms Simpson’s death had taken place five years previously, and the alleged intrusion did not take place in the immediate aftermath of the incident. Considering these factors, the Committee did not consider information from the statements being published early was so insensitive it amounted to intrusion in breach of the Clause.

18. The Committee considered whether publishing victim impact statements before they were heard in court breached the privacy of the family members who had given the statements. Due to the principle of open justice, in the absence of reporting restrictions, information which is heard in court or disclosed via document submitted to the court will generally be expected enter the public domain. While the impact statements had not yet been heard by the court at the time of the article’s publication – and parts of the statements had not been made public in court proceedings - Clause 2 considers the extent to which information will become public. The family had submitted the statements on the basis they could be heard at open court. In such circumstances, the Committee considered the publication had a reasonable cause to believe that the witness impact statements would shortly enter the public domain, and therefore, the newspaper was entitled publish them. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

19. The Committee considered whether reporting on the character reference given by the former commissioner prior to it being heard in open court – and the publication’s conduct in obtaining this information - breached Clause 2. IPSO’s regulations make clear that IPSO can only accept complaint made under Clause 2 from either an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach, or a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest. In this case the party directly affected by the alleged breach of Clause 2 was the former commissioner, and the complainants were not acting on her behalf. In addition, the complainants were not acting as a representative group. In such circumstances, the Committee. As such, the Committee was not able to consider this aspect of the complaint, as doing so would contravene IPSO’s own regulations.

Conclusions

20. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

21. N/A

Date complaint received: 13/09/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/04/2025