05403-24 Sohi v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Satinder Sohi complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “EXCLUSIVE' It's no better than a rowdy boozer': Celebrity hangout Chiltern Firehouse is slammed by angry residents who say their lives are being made a misery by anti-social behaviour, persistent noise, and drunken couples getting frisky in public”, published on 21 August 2024.

2. The article opened by reporting that “Celebrity hangout Chiltern Firehouse ha[d] been slammed for being 'no better than a rowdy boozer' by angry residents who sa[id] they are routinely confronted with drunken couples getting frisky in public and persistent noise”. It went on to report comments from a number of members of the public. Toward the end of the article, it reported:

“Satinder Sohi, 70 who regularly stays in a flat adjoining Chiltern Firehouse to help look after his two granddaughters said: 'There are always lots of drunk people coming out late at night. You can hear them screaming and shouting and sometimes couples get carried away.  

'It's not very pleasant to see a man and woman behaving as if they are in their bedroom while on the pavement outside your property but sadly, we've become used to it.'”

3. The article was first published at 5:07pm. At 6:49pm it was updated to include a photograph of the complainant. The photograph showed the complainant on a high-street, was taken from the waist upward, and showed him looking into the camera.

4. At 8:15pm and 9:26pm on the same day, the complainant contacted the reporter who wrote the article via email. His two emails included the following (complainant’s emphasis):

First Email  

“When you spoke to me yesterday on Chiltern Street I had specifically told you not to take my pictures as I did not want our pictures to be published or uploaded anywhere. It seems that your colleague took my photo without permission. As I did not consent to you taking my photos please remove my photo and name from the article urgently.”

Second Email

“Further to my earlier email where I told you that you did not have my consent to take my picture. Having looked at what you have attributed to me saying is not true. I had never said ‘There are always lots of drunk people coming out late at night. You can hear them screaming and shouting and sometimes couples get carried away.

'It's not very pleasant to see a man and woman behaving as if they are in their bedroom while on the pavement outside your property but sadly, we've become used to it.'

When you asked me about drunk people, I had said ‘I don't know anything about any drunks’.  

Please correct this as it is not true.”

5. At 8:03am on 22 August, the complainant contacted the publication, reiterating his concerns with the article.

6. In response, on 22 August, the publication removed the photograph of the complainant, and his name. The updated article, including the same quotes, referred to him as “one resident”.

7. On 26 August, the complainant complained to IPSO. He said the article breached Clause 1 because the quotes attributed to him were “completely fabricated”. All he said to the reporter, he said, was that: “high performance cars revving in the street disturb kids and when their employees leave at night through the back they don’t realise it very noisy”.

8. Further, the complainant said that the article breached Clause 2 because he did not consent to his name or photograph being published and, in fact, had requested his photograph not be taken.

9. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said its reporter had taken contemporaneous notes of the interaction with the complainant, which demonstrated that the reported quotes were accurate. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, the publication supplied the reporter’s shorthand notes, and a translation. The translation read as follows:

“Satinder Sohi. Aged 70.

‘I come here to visit my daughter. I come here to take care of the kids. Cars revving engines (complained about noise from noisy drivers in expensive cars).

‘I am on the fourth floor. ‘CFH (Chiltern Firehouse). 'Lots of drunken people coming out, hear them screaming and shouting.

‘[Names and ages of the complainant’s granddaughters] (granddaughters who were with Mr Sodhi). Twins

‘I came here to look after them during the lockdown. I’m taking them to the zoo.

‘We have complained about the noise. People vomiting. Couples getting carried away as if in their bedrooms on the pavement. We have become used to it.’”

10. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It said that at no point during the conversation did the complainant request his name or photo not be published. He had, it said, requested that no pictures be taken of his granddaughters, which the reporter and photographer had adhered to. It said that reporters in the field take photographs with their subjects as a record of the event, and the unedited photograph showed the reporter holding a notepad and pen, indicating where the complainant should be looking at the camera. It supplied IPSO with the photo in question.

11. It added that the conversation between its reporter and the complainant was amicable and friendly, which it believed was captured in the photograph, and the notes of the conversation - given the information the complainant had shared with the reporter regarding his granddaughters.

12. In response, the complainant said that, when initially speaking to the reporter, he was not aware that he was a reporter. During the conversation, the reporter pointed to the photographer, and asked him: “can he take your picture?”. This interaction, the complainant said, was captured by the image the publication had supplied. The complainant said he responded asking why he wanted to take a picture, to which the reporter told him it was for the newspaper. At this point, the complainant said: “No thank you, I don’t want to be in any paper", and then, "no, no pictures. we don’t want to be in any papers".

13. Having had sight of the reporter’s notes, the complainant also said that he had not said the following: “'Lots of drunken people coming out, hear them screaming and shouting […] We have complained about the noise. People vomiting. Couples getting carried away as if in their bedrooms on the pavement. We have become used to it”. He accepted that he had provided the other quotes recorded by the journalist.

14. He also said that, although his name and photo had been removed, the article still revealed his identify.

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.

Findings of the Committee

15. The Committee acknowledged, firstly, the inherent difficulty in making findings in cases where there is a fundamental dispute between two parties regarding events at which only they were present. Nevertheless, its role was to consider both positions and make its finding on the basis of the information put forward by the complainant and the publication.

16. It began with Clause 1. It was not in dispute that a conversation had taken place between the two parties regarding the venue that the article reported on. The publication had supplied notes which, it said, were taken by the reporter – the Committee noted that these notes tallied with the quotes attributed to the complainant in the article. The Committee had regard for the significance of contemporaneous notes – it has previously placed great importance on them, as in most cases, they can be an effective and important way in which a publication can demonstrate it has taken due care.

17. The Committee appreciated that the complainant disputed the accuracy of the notes, however, it recognised that they were the only record it had of the disputed conversation. The Committee also recognised that the complainant had accepted he had complained about the noise of car owners on the street, and from employees leaving the bar. This generally tallied with the tone of the reported quotes, expressing dissatisfaction with the behaviour of individuals around the premises of the bar. While the complainant disputed having said the precise words attributed to him by parts of the article, it was not in dispute that he had expressed unhappiness around the noise levels around the venue and the behaviour of customers.

18. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the newspaper had taken care over its reporting of the interaction between the reporter and the complainant. While it appreciated the complainant’s disagreement, the publication had supplied contemporaneous notes, which tallied with the reported quotes. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

19. The Committee could not be certain, beyond all doubt, what had been said to the reporter, and the general tone of what the complainant accepted he had said tallied with what had been reported. In these circumstances, the Committee was not able to establish that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

20. The Committee then turned to Clause 2, starting with the complainant’s concerns that that the newspaper had published his name without consent. Clause 2 (i) does not state that a newspapers needs permission to publish information – though they may be expected to justify intrusions made into an individuals’ private life without consent, according to the terms of Clause 2 (ii). Therefore, the first question for the Committee was whether such an intrusion had occurred.

21. The article had reported the complainant’s name, accompanied by a number of statements. An individual’s name is, generally, not something someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy over: it is simply an identifier, and will be known to many individuals and organisations in various contexts – the mere fact that someone has been named is not sufficient basis for saying their private and family life has been intruded into. However, publishing someone’s name in conjunction with private information about them may constitute an intrusion into their private life. In this case, however, the complainant had not said that the article contained such information. Therefore, the Committee did not consider that simply publishing his name represented a breach of Clause 2.

22. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2 that had he denied permission for the newspaper to take, and publish, his photo. Clause 2 (iii) says that consent is required to photograph individuals in locations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Committee therefore considered whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location where he was photographed.

23. The photograph of the complainant had been taken while the complainant was in a public place, on a high street, and visible to passers-by. It did not show him involved in any private activity– it only showed his likeness, which is not something an individual generally has a reasonable expectation of privacy over. In these circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

24. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

25. N/A

Date complaint received: 26/08/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 31/01/2025