04923-24 Mallon v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. Dr Christian Mallon complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “‘Career victim’ hit by £20,000 job tribunal bill”, published on 22 July 2024.

2. The article reported on an employment tribunal involving the complainant. It said the publication had previously reported the complainant “was applying for 2,000 jobs a year, many of which he was totally unqualified for, then claiming compensation saying his ADHD and autism had been ‘ignored’.” It also reported the complainant had “even cried discrimination after being rejected for a job of top-level civil servant position the Northern Ireland agriculture ministry, with a budget of £335million and 900 staff, despite having no relevant qualifications or experience.” The article then stated the complainant had now been “order[ed] to pay £20,000 in costs for ‘vexatious’ claims. It said the judge had said “that one of the 50 job applications involved in the latest case – all made through [named recruitment agency] – ‘made clear’ a requirement for a medical degree and background, which Mr Mallon, 49, ‘plainly did not have’.” It stated “the tribunal heard that ‘career victim’ Mr Mallon, who lives with his partner in a £300,000 house in Cannock, Staffordshire, generally submitted a CV for his applications. When he was rejected on the basis of that CV, he claimed he was discriminated against when his requests for an oral interview were refused.”

3. The article went on to report that the complainant “said his conditions, which also include[d] dyspraxia, meant he came across poorly in writing, so under disability discrimination law he should have been able to make oral applications.” It stated that, however, “the tribunal found he failed to show there was anything relevant he could have said in person that was not in his CV, and since he was ‘fundamentally mismatched’ for most of the jobs ‘oral applications would simply make no difference’”. It said the judge told the hearing in Norwich that the recruitment agency “incurred legal costs of £50,000, adding: ‘There was simply no evidence of discrimination.’” It then said the complainant, “who also has properties in Belfast and Scotland and has amassed £35,000 in payouts, declined to comment.”

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same form under the headline, “EXCLUSIVE' Professional' victim who made £35,000 from more than 100 disability complaints ordered to pay £20,000 in costs for his 'vexatious' claims.”

5. Prior to the article’s publication, a reporter for the newspaper visited the complainant’s property twice, on 31 January and 19 July 2024. The first time the reporter and the complainant had a conversation which lasted approximately 30 minutes. The complainant invited the reporter into his car for the conversation.

6. During the conversation, the reporter questioned the complainant about his previous employment tribunal and, the complainant gave the reporter his contact details. The interaction where the contact details were exchanged read as follows:

Complainant: [phone number]. I’ll give you my email as well because that might be easier then I can give you hyperlinks.

Reporter: Yes

Complainant: [email address] same email for years. I actually do some help with an autistic charity. For Zoom events.

7. The second time, the complainant was not willing to speak to the reporter and the reporter subsequently left a note under the complainant’s door.

8. The publication provided the recording of the interaction, which read as follows:

(Knocking sound)

Journalist: Hello

Mallon: Hiya

Journalist: Hi Mr Mallon. You probably recognise me. I’m the reporter (inaudible) -

Mallon: Yeah you didn’t listen to me last time so- (sound of door closing) Journalist: They’re going to write another story Mr Mallon. Do you know about this £20,000 cost thing? I’ll put a number in.

9. The note left by the reporter said:

“Dear Mr Mallon,

I was going to say that the Daily Mail are planning to publish another story about the £20,000 costs order that was made against you by [the judge] at the Norwich tribunal, in your case against [named recruitment agency].. If there is any comment you’d like to give about this, please contact me on [phone number] or [name of another reporter].

Yours sincerely,

[name of reporter]”

10. The complainant said the newspaper had breached Clause 3 when it approached him prior to the article’s publication. Turning first to the January interaction, he said the journalist did not listen to him during the conversation and subsequently ignored emails he had sent him after the first visit.

11. The complainant also said the publication breached Clause 3 because during the first interaction, the journalist showed an expiring press card which did not specify the publication he represented. He also said the reporter did not clearly state their purpose, the subject of the story or who he was working for.

12. Regarding the approach made by the journalist in July, the complainant that after he had made clear he did not want to speak to the journalist, the reporter shouted at his door after he had closed it, which had been upsetting for his partner. He also said the journalist had delivered an unwanted letter to his home.

13. The complainant also said the fact that both visits were not arranged in advance, and therefore took him by surprise, suggested a pattern of intrusive behaviour. He also said the reporter was aware he was neurodivergent and therefore vulnerable but had continued to question him and approach him – he considered this represented a further breach of Clause 3.

14. The complainant also said Clause 1 had been breached, as the journalist had recorded their conversation. He said the covert nature of recording introduced risks of misinterpretation or inaccurate transcription. The complainant also said the published article created a distorted and misleading portrayal of the situation as it omitted some things he had said, according to the recording.

15. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said this was because it reported he was applying for around 2,000 jobs a year. He said he was currently applying for around 1,000 to 1,500 jobs a year, although he later said he’d applied for “about 2k jobs in the past per year” and had told the reporter that he “applied for like 2000 jobs a year” during their conversation in January. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported on the tribunal, as it stated there had been “50 job applications involved in the latest case”. He said the case involved 65 jobs rather than 50. At different points over the course of his complaint, the complainant gave three different figures as to the amount of jobs the case involved – 54, 55 and 60.

16. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate because it did not mention he was appealing the tribunal’s decision, and therefore gave the impression the costs order and judgment was final.

17. The complainant said the article was inaccurate because it omitted to mention he had dyspraxia as well as ASD (autism spectrum disorder) and ADHD.

18. The complainant also said that the article was inaccurate because it did not mention contextual information about the tribunal. This included: the dates of the recent trial; that he had represented himself during the hearing; that the judge had not allowed an autism and ADHD expert to talk at a hearing; that the complainant attended the hearing remotely; the additional VAT incurred by the recruitment agency; the fact he requested reasonable adjustments he did not receive when applying for jobs and he disclosed his dyspraxia; that he had begun studying for a medical degree, and details of his property ownership; and his doctoral title.

19. He also said the article omitted to mention he requested oral applications instead of written applications because of his processing conditions. He also said the article did not include details of his application to a high-level Northern Irish civil service position.

20. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 12. He said the article had a negative impact on his daily life and made his job search more difficult in a manner he considered discriminatory. He also said the mentions of his disabilities could potentially be seen as pejorative.

21. The complainant also said that the interaction breached Clause 10 because the journalist recorded it without his knowledge or consent.

22. The complainant said the first interaction between him and the journalist breached Clause 2 because it took place in a private setting - his car - without him being aware he was being recorded. He also alleged that the newspaper collected his personal details – including his phone number and email address – under false pretences.

23. The complainant also said the first interaction breached Clause 4. He said the questioning by the reporter about personal matters, disabilities, and legal struggles could be seen as intrusive.

24. The complainant also raised concerns that the article was not in the public interest, and so the journalist’s conduct was in breach of the Code.

25. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning first to the complainant’s concerns about the second interaction under Clause 3, it said its recording of the interaction did not support the complainant’s suggestion that the reporter shouted at the complainant and banged on his door after it was closed the door.

26. The publication did not accept that leaving a note at the complainant’s house constituted harassment. It said the letter simply offered the complainant the right of reply to an upcoming story. It said this was a standard part of responsible journalism, and the letter was not rude, threatening, or harassing in any way.

27. Turning to the question of whether the reporter arriving at the complainant’s house unannounced could be breach Clause 3, the newspaper stated while it had sought to be mindful of the complainant’s disabilities, it did not consider this concern engaged the Clause. It also said that not responding to suggestions from the complainant did not engage the Clause. Regarding the complainant’s allegation that the reporter did not identify himself or the publication he represented, the publication supplied a transcript of their interaction where the reporter stated, “I’ve been asked to come round and speak to you about the Daily Mail. It’s about all these employment tribunals.”

28. The publication did not accept that recording the conversation constituted a breach of Clause 1, or that the journalist had acted “covertly” in recording the conversation. It said the purpose of making the recording was to ensure care was taken over the accuracy of an article and to avoid inaccurately reporting comments. It also noted that the complainant had not said that the publication had inaccurately reported anything he had said.

29. The newspaper did not accept reporting the complainant was applying for 2,000 jobs, nor that the latest case involved 65 jobs was significantly inaccurate. To support its position the case involved 50 job applications it provided an extract from the judgement which referred to the complainant making, “somewhere in the region of 50+ job applications”.

30. The newspaper also did not accept that it was inaccurate to report on a decision made by a court, regardless of if the complainant planned to appeal it. It said the media is entitled to report on the outcome of legal proceedings even if a party could or is planning to appeal. It said the fact the complainant planned to appeal did not change the fact that a judge made an adverse finding against him.

31. The newspaper did not accept that omitting the additional contextual information provided by the complainant rendered the article inaccurate. It said the selection of material for publication was an editorial choice and concerns information had not been included in an article did not engage the Code.

32. The publication also did not accept that the journalist having recorded his interaction with the complainant breached Clause 10. It referred to previous decisions by IPSO, which found that if an individual is aware they are speaking to a journalist and does so willingly, recording the conversation for the purposes of note keeping does not constitute subterfuge.

33. The newspaper did not accept a breach of Clause 12. It said while it was sympathetic to the complainant’s difficulties, his concerns did not engage Clause 12. It said it was the complainant’s decision to pursue what it described as “meritless and aggressive legal action” which the article was critical of, rather than his disabilities.

34. The publication did not accept Clause 4 had been breached during the course of the January interaction between the complainant and the journalist. It said the complainant was the one had raised personal matters and who had talked at length about them.

35. As the publication did not accept a possible breach of the Code, it did not provide a public interest defence of its reporting.

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 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.

Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*

i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

Clause 12 (Discrimination)

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

The Public Interest

There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.

1) The public interest includes, but is not confined to:

Detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.

Protecting public health or safety.

Protecting the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.

Disclosing a person or organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which they are subject.

Disclosing a miscarriage of justice.

Raising or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public.

Disclosing concealment, or likely concealment, of any of the above.

2) There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.

3)The regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain or will become so.

4) Editors invoking the public interest will need to demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication - or journalistic activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve, and be proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that decision at the time.

5) An exceptional public interest would need to be demonstrated to over-ride the normally paramount interests of children under 16.

Findings of the Committee

36. The Committee considered whether the first interaction between the complainant and the reporter breached Clause 3. Clause 3 does not prohibit journalists from arriving at individual’s properties without pre-arranging the visit. The Clause also does not make any stipulations regarding interviewing neurodiverse people, nor press cards shown by reporters. It was clear from the transcript of the call that the reporter had stated which publication he worked for, as well as the topic of the article – employment tribunals – and so the Committee was satisfied he had identified himself when requested. There was no breach of Clause 3.

37. The Committee then considered whether the newspaper had breached Clause 3 in the second interaction between the complainant and the reporter, when the reporter had knocked on the door and asked to interview the complainant for a follow-up article. The Committee recognised the complainant’s position that the interaction had involved shouting and banging on the door, which could potentially be regarded as intimidating under the terms of Clause 3. However, there was no evidence of this in the recording provided by the publication. Given the absence of any evidence to suggest the reporter had shouted at the complainant’s door, the Committee did not consider that there was a sufficient basis to find a breach of Clause 3 on this point.

38. The Committee then considered whether leaving a note under the complainant’s door constituted harassment. Clause 3 of the Code makes clear that journalists should not continue questioning individuals after being asked to desist. Therefore, the question for the Committee was whether such a request had been made and – if so – whether the publication had abided by this request.

39. The Committee considered closing the door to the journalist made it relatively clear the complainant did not wish to speak to him; albeit the request was not specific in whether the complainant did not wish to be contacted or questioned at all, or whether he did not wish to speak at that time – as he was frustrated with the outcome of the article – but would be open to speaking at a later date. After this point, there was no indication in the recording that the reporter remained on the complainant’s property for a long enough period to constitute harassment. Instead, he had left a single note, which was courteous in tone, and outlined the subject of the article and a way of contacting the publication. The Committee did not consider a singular, polite note, put under a door, after the door has been closed and the words “yeah you didn’t listen to me last time so” constituted harassment. There was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.

40. Clause 3 is designed to protect the public from unwanted press contact – it does not address circumstances where publications do not accept suggestions from the public as to what they should publish. As such, the complainant’s concerns that the publication did not listen to his suggestions did not engage the Clause.

41. The complainant had alleged the interaction being recorded could lead to a breach of Clause 1. However he did not identify any specific pieces of information in the article he which he said were inaccurate because the interaction had been recorded. Clause 1 relates to the publication of inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information – rather than to the possibility that such information could potentially have been published.

42. Where the complainant himself said at one time that he had applied for 2000 jobs per year, both in his complaint and the transcript of his conversation with the reporter, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate for the article to state the complainant was applying for 2000 jobs a year. Further, where the judge had referred to the case involving “somewhere in the region of 50+ job applications” in the judgement, the Committee did not consider it inaccurate for the article to refer to “50 job applications” involved in the latest case.

43. It was not in dispute that the judgment had – aside from the alleged inaccuracies highlighted above - been reported accurately; the newspaper was entitled to report the results of the judgment, regardless of whether the complainant was planning to appeal the decision. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

44. The Committee considered whether it was inaccurate to omit to mention the complainant had dyspraxia as well as ASD (autism spectrum disorder) and ADHD. Where the article made the complainant’s position clear, that his disabilities had been “ignored”, as well as the judge’s ruling that there was “simply no evidence of discrimination”, the Committee did not find the omission of one of the complainant’s disabilities rendered the article misleading or inaccurate.

45. The complainant provided further context and additional information which he believed was relevant to the article under complaint. He said this information had been omitted from the article and therefore made it inaccurate. However, the Committee did not consider the omission of the information provided by the complainant rendered the article inaccurate, misleading, or distorted, where the information – such as the complainant’s doctoral title and detail about his houses - was either irrelevant to court case which the article reported on, or was supplementary information which did not materially affect the overall accuracy of the article – such as the fact that the complainant had represented himself during proceedings. The Committee noted it would not be possible to include all relevant and contextual information in an article and newspapers are entitled to select which material they publish provided they do not breach the Code. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

46. The Committee next considered whether Clause 10 had been breached. The terms of Clause 10 make clear that the press should not seek to publish material obtained by using hidden recording devices. In this case, the recording itself was not published, and the complainant was aware he was speaking to a reporter throughout the conversation; there was no allegation that the reporter has misled the complainant as to his identity in order to obtain information, or that the complainant was not aware that the purpose of the conversation was to obtain material for publication. The Committee was satisfied that the complainant had not been recorded covertly for the purposes of publication, but rather that the conversation was recorded for the purpose of keeping an accurate contemporaneous record of what had been said. There was no breach of Clause 10.

47. The Committee then considered whether the interaction between the complainant and the reporter had breached Clause 2. The complainant said the interaction breached his privacy because it took place in a private setting, and during the interaction he had been recorded without his knowledge. However, the information shared in the conversation with the journalist had been disclosed willingly, and the complainant at no point indicated he did not wish for it to be published – the recording therefore did not capture anything over which the Committee considered the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy over. Furthermore, the recording itself had not been published and the Committee was satisfied that it had been made for the purposes of accurate record keeping. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider that recording the conversation intruded into the complainant’s privacy. Furthermore, while the interaction took place in a setting the complainant considered private, he had invited the reporter into this location. Taking these factors into account, the Committee did not consider this constituted a breach of Clause 2.

48. The complainant also alleged the publication had collected his personal details, including his phone number and email address, under false pretences, in breach of Clause 2. Given the reporter had made clear he was a journalist, which publication he was writing for, and the topic of the article, and the complainant was aware of this, the Committee did not accept the complainant had shared his contact details under false pretences. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

49. The Committee then considered whether the article was in breach of Clause 12. Clause 12 specifies publications must not make pejorative, prejudicial or irrelevant references to an individual’s protected characteristics. The complainant did not specify which references to his protected characteristics were in breach of the Clause, but the Committee noted the references to the complainant’s disabilities in the article were both in relation to comments he’d made about his own conditions. These included that the complainant was “claiming compensation saying his ADHD and autism had been ‘ignored’,” and that he “said his conditions, which also include dyspraxia, meant he came across poorly in writing, so under disability discrimination law he should have been able to make oral applications”. Where the references to the complainant’s disabilities were simply reflections of comments about them he had made himself, the Committee did not consider them to be pejorative or prejudicial.

50. The complainant’s allegation that that the article had caused him general difficulties relating to his medical conditions and job search did not engage the Clause. There was therefore no breach of Clause 12.

51. Clause 4 makes clear that it relates only to cases involving personal grief or shock. The complainant’s concern on this point did not relate to personal grief or shock – such as an experience of bereavement or injury – but to an employment tribunal he had been involved with. There was no breach of the Clause.

52. The Committee noted individuals were not able to complain under the public interest section of the Code – rather, this section of the Code allows for publications to either engage in behaviour or publish information that would otherwise breach the Code, provided they can demonstrate doing so serves the public interest in a proportionate way. In any event, where there was no breach of any of the Clauses under complaint, there was no requirement for the publication to make a public interest defence. Therefore, the Committee made no finding as to whether the article was in the public interest.

Conclusions

53. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 19/07/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/12/2024

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The publication complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.