05250-24 Donna Rose, Robert Baxter and Get to Know Animals Zoo v mirror.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Donna Rose - acting on her own behalf, and on behalf of Robert Baxter and Get to Know Animals Zoo - 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) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article headlined “Exclusive: Nightmare zoo where 'aggressive' dogs killed animals and owners tried to feed corpses to snakes”, published on 4 August 2024.

2. On 22 March, prior to the publication of the article, the publication contacted the complainant. Its email opened:

“I am emailing as New Forest District Council have told us that the RSPCA have recently visited GTKA [Get to Know Animals Zoo] after recieving complaints. The council also told us that its licensing team will also be conducting a visit after recieving similar complaints. The Mirror has also recieved the same complaints regarding the owner of the business, illegal dogs being kept at the premises, the alleged poor welfare standards at the zoo and workplace issues.” [sic]

3. The email went on to set out a number of allegations, and request the complainant’s comment. These included:

“Several staff claim 10-20 guinea pigs and a rabbit were recently killed by dogs Elsie and Eenie living upstairs of the site […] However, staff say [the rabbit’s] dead body is being kept in a freezer in an isolated room.

Some staff said they quit after Donna asked them to feed the dead guinea pigs to the snakes, they said they refused.

Staff claim the animals were thrown into the freezer. They claimed this happened despite the animals legally needing to go for post-mortem. They claimed the animals didn't go for postmortums because Donna said they didn't have the money, and they cost by the kg. [sic]

Donna and Rob are said to be living in an […] flat upstairs of the commercial building of the zoo. The dogs are reportedly being kept in the tiny flat with no windows, and are often being kept inside with not enough walks.

[…]

Staff […] all reportedly walked out in the start of March due to the alleged treatment of animals and communication issues with management.”

4. The publication’s email requested a response by 25 March. The complainant responded the same day. Their response made clear that it was not for publication, and disputed the claims set out in the publication’s email. It included the following extracts:

“Since that date [the day on which staff departed], we have been visited by the RSPCA and Epping Forest Council licencing and Commercial H&S team. […] Except for some minor administrative issues, the meeting was concluded satisfactorily with the H&S executive agreeing to come back and spend some time with me personally to discuss how we can ensure that we continue to make the most of our outsourced H&S team so that we can continue to deliver the high standards we have set.

[…]

I have attached the submitted site plans for our planning application and a video walk-around of the site (pictures of which you have previously hosted on your website). The only upstairs part of the building we have is certainly not big enough to house two people and two dogs and as you can see is used as a storage space.

[…]

Due to our financial limitations (which many organisations face within their first year), we have not been able to afford cremations for deceased animals and as such (again following regulations) the cadavers are stored in freezers.”

5. The complainant and publication also spoke by telephone, before engaging in further written correspondence. In a subsequent email on 25 March, again marked as not for publication, the complainants added:

“In response to your email: Would you like to provide a statement in response to several staff members claiming that between 10 to 20 guinea pigs and a rabbit were killed by the two dogs on site?

A) there was an incident in which 5 guinea pigs unfortunately passed away. The vets, local authorities and rspca have all conducted investigations into this following these unbelievable accusations and have even seen the bodies that we still have on site ready for proper cremation. All officials are satisfied with the explanation and conclusion.

[…]

Would you like to respond to the claim that you asked the staff to feed the dead guinea pigs to the live snakes?

A) Absolute fabrication, that have absolutely no evidence for or against as it did not happen.”

6. The complainant also provided a statement for publication, which included:

“We have since welcomed with open arms very thorough inspections from the local authority and the RSPCA who have both done a great job, and are very satisfied that we are maintaining a very high standard of care and that there are no immediate or underlying cause for any concerns. They also both agree that these allegations were malicious in nature and unfortunately very common amongst disgruntled ex-employees”.

7. The article was subsequently published on 4 August. It appeared online only, under the sub-headline: “Ex-staff members at Get To Know Animals zoo in Essex have shared harrowing evidence about an incident regarding animal deaths at the site. They quit their jobs over the level of care given to animals at the zoo”. It opened by reporting:

“A UK zoo owner has been accused of asking staff to feed animal corpses to other creatures, after their pet dogs savaged the animals to death in a string of horrifying incidents, the Mirror can reveal.

Donna Rose – owner of Get to Know Animals Zoo in Epping, Essex – and partner Rob Baxter have seen a large number of staff walk out in protest after their ‘aggressive’ pet dogs allegedly mauled more than 10 guinea pigs to death on-site. […]

In the most recent attack, shocked ex-workers claim they discovered that a rabbit named Rolo had been killed by the dogs, as well as the guinea pigs, after hours when the zoo was closed. When contacted by the Mirror, Ms Rose and Mr Baxter denied any wrongdoing at the zoo, but did accept a number of guinea pigs had died in ‘an incident’.

Disturbed staff told the Mirror they discovered what had happened after watching CCTV the next day. They went on to claim that Donna then asked them to feed the dead guinea pigs to the zoo's snakes. This led to at least six members of staff walking out on February 29 this year. A number of people with links to the zoo have independently corroborated this version of events to the Mirror.

In shocking videos also seen by the Mirror, which we have chosen not to publish, the owner referred to the situation as ‘sacrifice’ and said that the snakes eating the guinea pigs is ‘the circle of life’.”

8. The article then subsequently said: “However, it remains unclear whether the alleged dead animals were actually fed to the snakes after the staff walked out”.

9. Further to this, the article reported quotes from former members of staff. These included: “They have two dogs on site who have bitten and scratched many of the employees. Their two dogs have mauled and killed 10 to 15 guinea pigs and a brown rabbit (Rolo) because their dogs got out of the flat they have been living in for the past two years upstairs”; and “The dogs have actually killed guinea pigs and then Donna asked us to feed them to the snakes, which point blank all staff members, including myself, said we can't do”. The article also reported that one staff member “showed the Mirror several pictures of bruising from an alleged dog attack on-site and added: ‘There were many factors leading up to my decision to quit. Such as the killing of 10-20 guinea pigs and a rabbit by the dogs living upstairs. The poor dogs are big dogs and are being kept in a tiny flat upstairs, often going to the toilet inside as they aren't taken out frequently enough’.”

10. The article also reported: “The owners shared with the Mirror a video of the dogs playing happily in the zoo, confirming that the dogs are sometimes present downstairs. The couple denied living upstairs in the zoo and implied that it is not a big enough area for them to live in”. It also reported that the complainants denied a number of allegations, including asking staff to feed the guinea pigs to the snakes, failing to arrange post-mortems, and that the dogs were kept in a makeshift flat upstairs. It also included a statement from the complainants, as quoted above.

11. Further to this, the article reported:

“The RSPCA was approached three times by the Mirror, but refused to comment on an individual business. However, the local authority, Epping Forrest District Council confirmed that both themselves and the RSPCA were investigating Get To Know Animals after receiving ‘similar complaints’.

A council spokesperson told the Mirror: ‘The Council’s Licensing Team have received and are currently dealing with a complaint regarding Get to Know Animals. The complaint makes a number of unsubstantiated allegations regarding the owner of the business, illegal dogs being kept at the premises and the alleged poor welfare standards at the zoo.

[…]

Get to Know Animals was granted a Zoo licence in January 2023, and prior to issuing the licence, a thorough and comprehensive inspection was conducted using a Secretary of State appointed Zoo Inspector. The premises were found to meet the necessary legal standards. To ensure that standards are maintained throughout the period of the licence, premises are subject to periodic inspections again using a Secretary of State-appointed Zoo Inspector.

This is currently being arranged with our colleagues in the Zoo & Circus Licensing Team at the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) and will be conducted shortly. In the interim members of the Council’s Licensing Team will be conducting a visit to the premises. if found to be in breach of its licence conditions the matter will be dealt with accordingly. We’re aware that our colleagues at the RSPCA have received a similar complaint and have recently visited’.

A source, who is an expert at a zoo association, emphasised that if the claims were true, then the zoo cannot feed carcasses to another animal on site unless they hold a specific licence, known as an ABP animal by-products.

In response, the Mirror contacted APHA to see whether GTKA applied for a licence. However, the government body confirmed that they checked its records and said the zoo has not registered for one.”

12. Finally, the article closed by reporting: “It remains unclear whether the owners fed the alleged dead guinea pigs to the snakes after the staff members refused to and quit their jobs.”

13. The article also included photographs of the dogs, pictured both inside and outside the zoo. The photograph taken inside the zoo had been taken by a CCTV camera. The article also included multiple images of bruises and scratches to an individual whose face was not pictured. These were captioned: “Multiple staff members said they were attacked by the dogs”; “Staff claimed they were injured by the dogs”; and “The employees said they had marks from when they were attacked by the dogs”.

14. Additionally, the article included two images of a dog inside a property – in one, it appeared to be going underneath a bed, in the other it was pictured on a bed, looking out of a window. These were captioned: “Staff filmed the dog inside the ‘storage room’ bedroom” and “One ‘tiny’ window could be seen in the flat”, respectively.

15. Further, the article included two pictures of deceased animals, which appeared to be in a freezer, as well as a further image of the freezer itself. These were captioned; “Staff said the animals were dumped in the freezer with no intentions of them to be officially examined”; “The animals died after they were attacked by the dogs”; and “Staff said Rolo the rabbit wasn’t re-homed and was found in the freezer”.

16. The article also included three promotional images for the zoo.

17. The article also included an image of Donna Rose. It showed Ms Rose sat on a sofa, under a blanket, with both dogs sat on top of her. This was captioned: “Owner Donna Rose with the two dangerous dogs upstairs in the zoo”.

18. Additionally, the article included two screenshots of WhatsApp messages, with the number of the recipient pixilated. The first was captioned: “Donna’s number was verified by The Mirror” and included the following text:

“The problem is we literally don’t have a bloody bean left after wages yesterday, and any vet could easily charge 4-500 for this […]”

19. The second was captioned: “The zoo reportedly did not have enough money to send sick or injured animals to the vets, or to cremate deceased ones”, and included the following messages:

“Person A: “Can’t we try another vets? If not he has to deal with it for 3 days and don’t know if its cutting any blood off or anything

[…]

Person B: But thing is we hardly have a penny in the account and our vet give us a massive discount plus credit.

I definitely don’t have enough for emergency vet”

20. The article also included a video, which appeared beneath the headline. The video included three parts - the first, filmed from a first-person perspective, showed someone walking up a flight of stairs and opening an unmarked door to show the inside of a room in a property, which included a number of sofas. The second and third parts both showed the complainant’s dogs inside a room – in the former they were playfighting, in the latter, one dog was shown asleep on a sofa. The video was captioned: “Video shows inside nightmare zoo with ‘aggressive dogs’”.

21. On 14 August, the complainant complained to IPSO. She said that the article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, for a number of reasons. Firstly, she said that there was no evidence to suggest that any animals had been mauled or attacked by the dogs, and that this had been confirmed during inspections with Epping Forest District Council (EFDC), and the RSPCA. She said that the allegations had been maliciously given to the newspaper by their former staff.

22. In support of this position, she supplied a screenshot of an email from EFDC. Dated 27 March, it read: “The purpose of the inspection was to investigate and discuss complaints received by Epping Forest District Council regarding welfare conditions at the zoo […]. As advised, prior to the inspection we contacted your vet […] who confirmed that you regularly (almost weekly) attend the practice with animals and that none presented any welfare concerns. Furthermore, during our inspection, no health issues were witnessed and therefore it is not considered necessary to carry out a section 11 special inspection, with a suitably competent vet, at this time”.

23. The complainant also denied that their dogs had harmed staff – she said the article included “completely random images of bruises” that could have been sustained anywhere, and that no formal complaints had been made. The complainant said that this had been confirmed to the newspaper in their correspondence prior to the article’s publication. Further, she said that the article included “random images of dogs doing absolutely nothing wrong” – which she considered disproved the staff’s claims – and said that she had provided videos of staff playing with the dogs to the publication in prior correspondence, which she again considered showed that the claims were inaccurate.

24. Further, the complainant said that the article breached Clause 1 because it included “completely random images of deceased animals”, that did not show signs of attack. She said that all deceased animals were stored in accordance with zoo licensing conditions – in a freezer until a postmortem or disposal was possible - and that the images demonstrated this.

25. In addition, she said that the headline was inaccurate, as “corpses” could only be taken to mean “human remains” – and there had been no allegations that such remains had been fed to animals. Further, she denied that staff were “asked to feed any dead animals to snakes” – rather, they said there had been a “general, hypothetical discussion surrounding ethics” with the staff following the deaths of some of the zoo’s resident animals.

26. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported that six members of staff had left the zoo due to the guinea pigs being trampled by the dogs. She said that the staff had each provided different reasons for leaving, none of which concerned the treatment of animals.

27. Additionally, the complainant said that – by the time of the article’s publication - the zoo was not under investigation by either the RSPCA or the EFDC, and held all relevant licenses, including the ABP license. The complainant also disputed that the article’s claim that the publication had “independently corroborated” the story - she said this was conjecture and inaccurate, given the reported allegations were inaccurate. She also said that a third party had been contacted by the publication, and had rebutted the allegations in the article – and this had been omitted from the article, and not taken into account.

28. Turning to Clause 2, the complainant said that the article included a private photograph of her in her “home environment”, when she was suffering from health issues. She said this was clear from the photograph – she was sitting on her sofa and cuddling her dogs for support due to being unwell.

29. Further, the complainant said that the article breached Clause 2 by reporting that she and her partner resided in the “flat above the zoo”. She said the article therefore published their exact address, as well as a video of how to access and enter the property. Finally, she said the article breached Clause 2 as it included her WhatsApp correspondence. This was private and, she said, had been published without consent. She also said the WhatsApp messages had been illegally obtained, as they had been provided to the newspaper by ex-employees in breach of their employment contracts.

30. The complainant also noted, under Clause 2, that consent had not been given to publish any of the material in the article – including the photographs and videos which appeared in the article.

31. The complainant also complained under Clause 4. She said that she and her partner were in a state of “deep shock” due to their staffs’ departures when they had been contacted by the newspaper, and that they been given insufficient time to respond to the newspaper’s email, despite making clear on the telephone that they were distressed. She also reiterated, under Clause 4, that the publication had acted unsympathetically by publishing what they considered to be conjecture.

32. Finally, the complainant also complained under Clause 10. She said that permission had not been given, or requested, for any of the material in the article to be published. She also said that the CCTV images used in the article – the images of the dogs inside the zoo – were company property, and reiterated that these had been given to the publication by staff in breach of their contracts.

33. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. Starting with Clause 1, the publication said that the article made clear throughout that it was reporting on claims made by former members of staff at the zoo. For example, it said the complainants have been “accused”, and the dogs had “allegedly mauled” animals, and used such terminology throughout. It also noted that the article reported a number of direct quotes from former staff – cumulatively, it said, the article clearly distinguished between comment, conjecture and fact in reporting the allegations against the complainant.

34. In support of its position, the publication provided IPSO with transcripts of its phone calls with two ex-members of zoo staff. It also provided WhatsApp correspondence with the same staff, as well as email correspondence with a number of further ex-staff members – it said this correspondence corroborated the reported claims. The correspondence from the staff made reference to: employees “walking out” of the zoo; the complainant living “upstairs” at the zoo premises with the dogs, in a room too small to house the dogs; the dogs being dangerous to customers and other animals, and causing injury to employees; the dogs mauling and killing “10-15” guinea pigs; and the complainants being under investigation by the various agencies cited in the article.

35. In correspondence with one staff member, the publication were also supplied a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation between the complainant and the staff member, as well as a number of images of scratches and bruises, as included in the article. This was later supplied to IPSO. The correspondence showed the complainant had written:

“Omfg PLEASE don’t let her near anyone at all, I forgot to tell you, she is massively aggressive atm…. she has bitten [named individual] twice now […] be so careful, don’t let ANYONE near her, she will not be okay with them!”

36. In response to the complaint that the article inaccurately reported the zoo was under investigation, the publication supplied IPSO with its correspondence with the APHA [Animal and Plant Health Agency] and the local council. In an email from 15 March, the council supplied the statement quoted above which, the newspaper noted, said that an inspection was “currently being arranged” with APHA. In later correspondence on 18 July and 19 July, the council did not respond to requests from the newspaper asking whether it and the RSPCA were still investigating.

37. The publication also supplied its correspondence with the RSPCA. The RSPCA did not provide a statement for publication – however, in an email from 19 July, it commented: “for your guidance only - we are not investigating this and are no longer involved - so it would be best for you to speak to the council for information as zoo licensing is a matter for the local authority”.

38. The publication also noted the complainant’s statement, as reported in the article, said its meeting concluded with the “H&S executive agreeing to come back”. In light of the above, the publication said that it appeared to be accurate to report that the inspections and investigations were ongoing. In any event, it also noted that the article reported the complainant’s position that the inspections had taken place, and had been satisfactory.

39. Further, it said it was immaterial whether the zoo had an ABP license at the time of publication, since it was confirmed that it did not have one during the period described in the article. It supplied its correspondence with the APHA who, on 11 June, had stated: “A full list of ABP premises can be found here – and APHA officials have checked their records and cannot find an ABP registration under [the complainant’s] name”. It denied a breach of Clause 1 on this point, but offered to update the article to include the following as a footnote: “UPDATE: We understand that the Get To Know Animals Epping zoo has now been granted an ABP licence”.

40. The complainant had complained that the publication had omitted a rebuttal of the allegations from a third party, and that the publication had not taken into account parts of her response, such as the videos of staff playing with the dogs. The publication noted that the article reported that the complainant had shared videos of the dogs in the zoo – it had also reported that the complainants denied the dogs were harmful.

41. Regarding the rebuttal, the publication said a third party had denied seeing the dogs being aggressive – however, it said it had also obtained evidence from the former staff which suggested this denial was unreliable, and so had chosen not to publish the denial, or the evidence from the staff in question. It did not accept a breach of Clause 1 on this point.

42. Turning to Clause 2, the publication denied that it had published the complainant’s address, or material showing the inside of their property. It noted that, in correspondence prior to publication, the complainant had denied that they lived on the premises, and that the article had reported this denial. The publication also disputed that the video which appeared beneath the headline showed how to access the inside of the property – the video did not show where the staircase to the property was, or how to access it. It also noted that the door was unlocked, which it considered unusual for a “private flat”, which the complainant had alleged in her complaint it was.

43. Given this, the publication also denied that the complainant had been pictured in her property in the article. Notwithstanding this, regarding the specific complaint about the use of an image of the complainant, it also said that the image did not suggest that the complainant was unwell, nor was this mentioned or suggested in the article itself.

44. The publication also said that it considered the information reported in the article to be in the public interest, and that it had taken pre-publication legal advice prior to publishing the article. Regarding the images and videos of the dogs on the zoo premises, as well as video showing the space in which the dogs were kept, the publication said it was in the public interest to publish this information on the grounds of protecting public health or safety – the content demonstrated the dogs being aggressive, and supported the ex-staff members’ claims.

45. The publication also said that the any possible breach of privacy – which it disputed strongly – arising from the video’s publication was proportional to the public interest it served. It noted it had taken steps to edit out the parts of the video - which had been sent to it by a source – which could reveal the location of the entrance to the property, and to both remove and mute any people that appeared in the footage.

46. Regarding the WhatsApp correspondence, the publication said it was in the public interest to publish this on the grounds of disclosing the complainants’ failure, or likely failure, to comply with obligations to which they are subject - the correspondence showed that the zoo was not able to financially support unwell animals. The publication also noted that the messages only showed discussions surrounding the care of animals, and that private information – the complainant’s phone number – had been redacted.

47. To demonstrate that it had considered the public interest prior to publishing the material under complaint, the publication supplied extracts of correspondence between staff at the publication. In an email dated 18 April – 108 days before the article’s publication - an editor at the publication wrote the following (publication’s emphasis):

“Donna herself has said she cannot afford to fund the process past the point of freezing the animals. As heard in the video footage. If the zoo do not have sufficient money to pay their staff, afford vet treatment on a frequent basis or to pay for procedures, this should be of the public interest.

[…]

In shocking videos also seen by the Mirror, which we have chosen not to publish, the owner referred to the situation as ‘sacrifice’ and said that the snakes eating the guinea pigs is ‘the circle of life’. In the recording, A voice believed to be Donna's is heard threatening to ‘smash’ a member of staff in the ‘f***king face’ after they confronted her about animal deaths at the zoo, which opened in February 2023. [APPRECIATE THIS WAS A PRIVATE MEETING, BUT WE BELIEVE THERE'S SUFFICIENT PUBLIC INTEREST IN KNOWING THE CHARACTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOOKING AFTER DEPENDENT ANIMALS.

[…]

In another video shown to the Mirror, Rob and Donna held a meeting to address the zoo's financial situation. During the video, they apologised for the times that staff hadn't been paid properly. [SAME COMMENT AS ABOVE ON PUBLIC INTEREST - SOME PEOPLE WOULD CHOSE TO AVOID A ZOO KNOWING THEY'RE NOT PAYING THEIR STAFF]”.

48. The publication denied that Clause 4 was engaged by the complainant’s concerns. Regarding Clause 10, it stated that all the material was given by the former staff members of their own accord, and the publication had been approached with their material after the events reported on – it had not itself engaged in subterfuge, or commissioned agents to do so on its behalf.

49. In response, the complainant maintained that the article was inaccurate, and said that the publication had not provided evidence to support the reported allegations. She supplied internal records of their animals’ medical history, and said that their former staff had lied about the level of care they were giving to the animals. The complainant also provided WhatsApp messages with ex-staff members, which she said showed they previously had good relationships with the staff in question, and they had not left for the reasons described in the article.

50. Regarding the disputed ABP license and the ongoing investigations, the complainant accepted that the zoo did not have an ABP license during the period of time the article was reporting on. However, she pointed to the RSPCA email to the publication from 19 July, as quoted above, that said: “for your guidance only - we are not investigating this and are no longer involved”. She said that this represented proof that the RSPCA were not investigating them, and said the article was inaccurate as it implied that the investigations were ongoing.

51. The complainant also provided a screenshot of an RSPCA report following the organisation’s visit to the zoo. This included:“O4/03/2024 @ 15.35 hrs – Advice Given at Location -

‘Owners allowed us inside and gave us a tour of the premises […] I put allegation to them of dog getting in and killing guinea pigs. This was denied, said the dogs got in and trampled 3 of the guinea pigs when then died. Denied it being 17 hurt guinea pigs, they said they’ve never even had that many guinea pigs’.”

52. The complainant said that the property shown in the article – both in the video and the images, including the image of her on the sofa - was indeed her home. She said the location pictured was part of their premises which, although not part of zoo’s lease, was where they reside. Regarding the prior correspondence with the newspaper, in which she disputed living above the zoo, she said this was “merely a technicality”; she had been talking about a different space, on the zoo’s lease, which is only used for storage.

53. In response, the publication pointed to the RSPCA report provided by the complainant. It said this was an official record of the complainant accepting that the dogs had gotten into the guinea pig enclosure and trampled them to death, which contradicted the complainant’s initial position. While not accepting a breach of Clause 1, at this point in IPSO’s investigation – on 28 November – the publication also offered to add a clarification to the article regarding the outcome of the RSPCA investigation.

54. The publication also said that the complainant’s acceptance that the zoo did not have an ABP license in February 2024 showed that they were not allowed to feed dead animals to other animals during the period of time the article reported on.

55. Turning to Clause 2, the publication said this was the first time the complainant had claimed that the area shown in the article was their residence. It said that it had engaged in correspondence with the complainant prior to the article’s publication, and the complainant had not clarified this, either on the telephone or over email – indeed, the article had reported that the complainant denied they lived above the zoo. It said it could only rely on the evidence provided to it pre-publication to make its editorial decisions, and – as far as it had been aware until IPSO’s investigation – the complainant and her partner did not live above the zoo, and therefore the video could not have shown their private residence.

56. In any event, it said the video did not suggest that the area was part of the complainant’s private residence. It appeared to be on zoo premises, and accessible for staff. Regardless, it still considered it to be in the public interest to publish the video and photographs: they illustrated the staff’s claims that it is not a big enough area for two large dogs to reside in.

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 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.

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

57. The complainant had complained, under Clause 2, that the article had published, without their consent, images and video showing the inside of their home, as well as how to access it. The video which appeared in the article showed someone walking up a flight of stairs and opening an unmarked door to show the inside of a room in a property, which included a number of sofas. It also showed the dogs within this space – as did two further images included in the article.

58. The Committee noted, firstly, that the protections of Clause 2 explicitly cover an individuals’ home. The complainant had contended, throughout IPSO’s investigation, that the area pictured was their home – the Committee also noted that the article reported allegations that the complainants were living in the space in question. In light of the complainant’s position that the video and photographs showed their home, it turned to whether the complainants had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the video and photographs.

59. The Committee recognised, firstly, that the issue of whether the property was the complainant’s home had been put to the complainant by the newspaper prior to the article’s publication, in the following terms: “Donna and Rob are said to be living in an […] flat upstairs of the commercial building of the zoo. The dogs are reportedly being kept in the tiny flat with no windows, and are often being kept inside with not enough walks”. In response, the complainant had denied that they lived in the upstairs area: “The only upstairs part of the building we have is certainly not big enough to house two people and two dogs and as you can see is used as a storage space”.

60. In the Committee’s view, the publication were entitled to rely on this information when reaching the decision to publish the video and photographs. The complainants had said that they did not live above the zoo, which was the area shown in the video and photographs, and it was reasonable for the publication to take this into account when considering what expectation of privacy – if any – the complainants would have over the space shown in the video and photographs.

61. The complainant had later commented that this was a “technicality” – she said that she had been talking about a different space on the zoo’s lease. However, the Committee did not consider that this had been made clear during the complainant’s direct correspondence with the newspaper, in which the complainant had said that the “only upstairs part of the building we have […] is used as a storage space”. The complainant’s response amounted to a clear denial of the allegation that they lived above the zoo – it was reasonable for the publication to assume, therefore, that the property above the zoo was not their home, as they later contended as part of their complaint, but rather, was a “storage space”. In the Committee’s view, any reasonable expectation of privacy the complainant had over material showing the inside of the property was therefore reduced, given she had denied it was their home directly to the publication.

62. The Committee also had regard for what the video and photographs actually showed, when considering whether there had been an intrusion into the complainants’ private and home life. The video, which showed a door being opened, did not show where this door was located, or how to access it – the door was also unmarked which, in the Committee’s view, restricted the extent to which it would be identifiable to a reader of the article. Further, the video and photographs simply showed an area with a number of sofas, and the dogs playing and sleeping in this area. It therefore noted that the information revealed by the video was limited – it did not show the precise location of the space or show the complainants themselves in their living space.

63. Finally, the Committee took into account that the publication was reporting on serious claims which had been made about the complainants and the zoo, in respect of allegations regarding both the treatment of staff members and animals. These included that the complainants were living above the zoo in a space which was unsuitable for their two dogs, and which provided direct access to the zoo’s grounds. Where the complainants had seemingly denied living above the zoo in correspondence prior to the article’s publication, the Committee considered that there was a public interest in publishing information in support of the claims being made.

64. For these reasons, the Committee considered that to the extent that the images showed any information regarding the complainants’ private or home life, any reasonable expectation of privacy which they had in respect of this information was limited and that publication was justified in the public interest. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

65. Having established this, the Committee turned to the photograph of the complainant inside the property. The complainant had complained, under Clause 2, that the newspaper had published a photograph of her in her home environment while she was unwell.

66. In this instance, the Committee recognised, as set out above, that the publication of photographs showing the inside of the property did not, in the specific circumstances of this case, amount to a breach of Clause 2. Regarding the photograph of the complainant specifically, the Committee did not consider that the image showed any private information - while it appreciated the complainant may have been unwell at the time, this was not evident in the image, which simply showed her sat on a sofa, with her dogs; the Committee considered the photograph simply showed the complainant’s likeness. The article also made no reference to any medical issues the complainant might have.

67. Further, the Committee also noted that it was not in dispute that the images in the article had been supplied to the publication by the former staff of their own accord - the Committee did not consider, therefore, that the image had been obtained in an inherently intrusive manner which may have further engaged Clause 2. There was no breach of Clause 2 in respect of publication of this photograph.

68. The Committee then turned to the WhatsApp correspondence – again, it recognised that the protections of Clause 2 expressly cover “digital correspondence”. The complainant had also complained that the correspondence had been published without consent.

69. The Committee took this into account. In its view, however, the correspondence related to the zoo’s finances; it showed the complainant communicating with a zoo employee about the zoo’s financial means and position. In such circumstances, it was internal business correspondence, rather than correspondence which related to the complainants’ private or family life. It showed the complainant commenting that the zoo lacked sufficient finances to fund an emergency vet for an animal that was unwell: “we don’t have a bloody bean left after wages yesterday”, and that they “hardly have a penny in the account and our vet give us a massive discount plus credit” [sic].

70. The Committee also recognised, in making its decision, that businesses or organisations do not have privacy under Clause 2, the protections of which solely relate to individuals. Taking these factors into account, there was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

71. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concern that the article had, indirectly, published their exact address. It recognised that the article did not report, as fact, that the complainants lived above the zoo. Rather, it reported allegations from former staff that the complainant and her partner lived above the zoo, as well as their denial that this was the case. The Committee also recognised that, particularly in this specific case, an address is not inherently private information - the property was linked with the zoo, the address of which would be readily available in the public domain, and was not reported in the article. In light of this, the Committee did not consider that the complainants had a reasonable expectation of privacy over this information, nor did the article represent an intrusion into the private or home life in respect of this specific information. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

72. The complainants had also complained under Clause 2 that consent was not given for any of the material reported in the article. The Committee was clear that permission is not required to published material under Clause 2, although it is a factor it may take into account. In this case, however, it again recognised that the entirety of the material was supplied by the former staff members of their own accord – this was not an intrusive manner of obtaining material on the part of the publication, and the Committee did not consider that consent was required to publish it. The Committee also noted that – aside from the images and videos considered above – the complainant had not raised specific concerns that the remaining images in the article reported any inherently private information. There was no breach of Clause 2 regarding the publication of these images.

73. The Committee then turned to Clause 1. The complainant had said that the article inaccurately reported that: the dogs had attacked, and killed, animals at the zoo; the dogs had attacked staff members; staff members had been asked to feed deceased animals to snakes; and deceased animals had been frozen and not properly disposed of.

74. The Committee was clear that newspapers are entitled to report claims and allegations, though this does not absolve them of their obligations under Clause 1 – they are still required to take care over the accuracy of any information they report, and to correct any significantly inaccurate information.

75. The Committee considered that, throughout, the article made clear that the claims from the former staff members were allegations, rather than established fact. For example, it opened by reporting: “A UK zoo owner has been accused of asking staff to feed animal corpses to other creatures” before going on to report that staff had “told” the publication their story, that they “claim[ed]” they had been asked to feed dead animals to the snakes, and that the dogs had “allegedly mauled” a number of guinea pigs.

76. The Committee also noted that the article included the complainant’s position, and in doing so, made clear that they disputed the veracity of the claims. Not only did it report the statement she had provided, but it made clear that she denied the reported allegations. It was therefore clear that the article reported on allegations which were strongly disputed by the complainant, further making clear that the allegations were not established fact. The reported statement also included: “They [the EFDC and the RSPCA] also both agree that these allegations were malicious in nature and unfortunately very common amongst disgruntled ex-employees”. Further, the article also concluded by noting: “It remains unclear whether the owners fed the alleged dead guinea pigs to the snakes”.

77. While the Committee appreciated that the complainant disputed these claims, and had pointed to the previous good relationship they had had with former staff members, it recognised that the staff were still entitled to make the claims in the article, and the publication to report them, regardless of the staff members’ previous relationship with the complainant.

78. Having established this, the Committee recognised there was a clear basis for the publication’s reporting. It was not in dispute that multiple staff members had provided the allegations reported in the article - the publication had supplied extracts of correspondence to evidence this, which made reference to the disputed incidents. The Committee also noted that parts of the material supplied by the complainant appeared to tally with parts of the article. For example, she had supplied a report from the RSPCA, which noted that the inspector had “put [an] allegation to them of dog getting in and killing guinea pigs. This was denied, [they] said the dogs got in and trampled 3 of the guinea pigs which then died”.

79. Similarly, in their initial correspondence with the newspaper, the complainant had said: “there was an incident in which 5 guinea pigs unfortunately passed away”. The publication had also supplied correspondence between the complainant and a staff member in which she appeared to reference the dogs being aggressive – “Omfg PLEASE don’t let her near anyone at all, I forgot to tell you, she is massively aggressive atm…. she has bitten [named individual] twice now”.

80. Further, regarding the allegation that they had asked staff to feed dead animals to the snakes, the Committee did not consider it to be in dispute that there had been a discussion about feeding deceased animals to other animals, and that this had happened after the deaths of a number of guinea pigs – the complainant had termed this a “general, hypothetical discussion surrounding ethics”.

81. In light of the above factors, the Committee did not consider the article to be inaccurate or misleading where it reported the claims of former staff as a whole. The Committee did note that - read in isolation – some lines in the article were ambiguous as to whether they were reporting established fact or allegations; for example, the headline referred to the “Nightmare zoo where 'aggressive' dogs killed animals”, and one of the image captions read: “The animals died after they were attacked by the dogs”. However, taking the article as a whole, it was clear that it was reporting on strongly disputed allegations made by former staff members. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

82. The Committee also did not consider the article breached Clause 1 by omitting certain information provided to the publication, such as the videos showing staff members playing with the dogs. It was clear that the publication was entitled to report what information it considered appropriate, provided it did so accurately, which – as noted above – the Committee considered it had.

83. The Committee did consider, more specifically, the complainant’s concerns that the article omitted to report on a rebuttal provided by a third party that they had not seen the dogs being aggressive. The Committee noted the publication’s position – it had said that it had evidence this denial was unreliable – and took into account, as noted above, that the newspaper was entitled to report on what information it considered appropriate. It also recognised, again, that the article was abundantly clear that the complainants denied the allegations made regarding their dogs. In light of this, the Committee did not consider the omission of this rebuttal rendered the article inaccurate or misleading – the complainant's’ denial made this point clear, irrespective of the omission of a third-party denial. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

84. The Committee then turned to the complaint that the zoo was not under investigation at the time of the article’s publication. The article had reported that “[t]he RSPCA […] refused to comment on an individual business. However, the local authority, Epping Forrest District Council confirmed that both themselves and the RSPCA were investigating Get To Know Animals after receiving ‘similar complaints’.”

85. It was not in dispute that the publication had been provided the reported statements – it was also not in dispute that the RSPCA had declined to provide a reportable comment. The Committee did not consider the publication of the statements constituted a failure to take due care on the part of the publication therefore - they had been provided by the organisations, and were accurately reported in the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

86. The Committee turned, however, to whether the article was significantly inaccurate or misleading, and whether it suggested the zoo was still under investigation by the time of publication - particularly given the RSPCA had provided a non-reportable comment, dated 19 July, that they “were not investigating this and [were] no longer involved”, whereas the EFDC statement reported in the article had been provided earlier, on 15 March.

87. The Committee noted that the article reported the complainants’ statement, which made clear that the zoo had been subject to inspections, which had been satisfactory. It also noted that the complainants’ statement made reference to the EFDC “agreeing to come back and spend time” with the complainants. In light of this, and on balance, the Committee did not consider the statement to be significantly inaccurate or misleading. It recognised that “were investigating” could be read in the past tense, and that it had been supplied by the EFDC in their initial statement. It was also not in dispute that, following the allegations, the complainants had been subject to visits from the EFDC and the RSCPA, albeit these had not, seemingly, led to full investigations – the article also reported the complainant’s position that it had passed these inspections. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

88. The Committee then turned to the complaint that the zoo had an ABP license at the time of publication, and the article was therefore inaccurate. The article had reported that the APHA had confirmed the complainants did not hold an ABP license – the publication had supplied their correspondence with the APHA, dated 11 June, which supported this. In subsequent correspondence, the complainant had supplied an image of the license, which was dated 25 July 2024.

89. In light of this, the Committee did not consider the article to be inaccurate or misleading on this point – the APHA had confirmed to the publication that the zoo did not have a license, and the article made this clear. The Committee noted that a period of time had lapsed between this confirmation and the publication of the article – however, where the zoo did not have a license at the time of the events relevant to the article, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate or misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

90. The Committee then turned to the complaint that the article inaccurately reported that six staff members had left the zoo due to concerns over the treatment of the animals. They had supplied the reasons they believed the staff had left, none of which referred to concerns about animal welfare.

91. The Committee recognised that, although they were their employers, the complainants were not in a position to know definitively why the staff had left – it would be for these individuals to make a complaint that the article was inaccurate on this point, given they would know the precise reasons behind their departures. The Committee did not consider the article to be inaccurate or misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

92. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concern that the headline of the article misleadingly referred to “human remains”, as it used the term “corpses”. The Committee did not consider that “corpses” was exclusive to human remains – particularly in the context of the article which reported on the deaths of animals at a zoo, and in the context of the headline itself, which also referred to “nightmare zoo” and “animals”. It did not consider the article to be inaccurate or misleading on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

93. The Committee then turned to Clause 4. The complainant said that they had been given insufficient time to prepare a response, despite making clear to the newspaper that they were distressed at the time of the publication asking for their comment. They had also said that the publication of the article itself was insensitive, and therefore breached Clause 4.

94. The Committee appreciated that the complainants may have been distressed by the situation. However, it did not consider that the departure of the staff represented a time of personal grief or shock as defined by Clause 4 – it also recognised that newspapers are entitled to approach the subjects of stories for comment, even at difficult times, and doing so does not, in and of itself, constitute an unsympathetic or indiscrete approach. There was no breach of Clause 4.

95. The Committee then turned to Clause 10. The complainant had complained about the publication of pictures, videos and confidential information regarding their zoo. The Committee recognised that, barring certain circumstances, Clause 10 prevents publications from publishing material that it has obtained by clandestine devices or subterfuge. However, it was not in dispute that all the material under complaint has been supplied to the publication by the former staff members on their own accord – and therefore, that the publication had not engaged in subterfuge, nor had it engaged agents to do so on its behalf. There was no breach of Clause 10.

Conclusions

96. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 14/08/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/05/2025