05462-24 Wallace and Parsons v mirror.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Harriet Wallace and Robert Parsons complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article headlined “Cricketer's Pitbull terriers savage girl, 7, after kids' party at pavilion”, published on 2 September 2024.

2. The article appeared under the sub-headline: “Wicketkeeper Robert Parsons, 27, faces up to five years in jail after he and his fiancé were walking around the boundary of his rural cricket club when the Pitbulls grabbed the girl’s leg”. It then opened by reporting:

“A cricketer's Pitbull terriers savaged a 7-year-old girl who was left needing ‘serious’ surgery after the hounds pounced on the youngster following a children's pavilion party.  

Wicketkeeper Robert Parsons, 27, was arrested and faces up to five years in jail after he and his fiancé were walking around the boundary of his rural cricket club when the dogs escaped their leads.  

[…]

The victim was rushed to hospital where she underwent surgery for her wounds which are said to be 'serious.' She has also had plastic surgery and physiotherapy following the incident.

Parsons […] was detained by police at the pitch side along with his 26-year-old fiancee Harriet Wallace before both were charged with dangerous dog offences.”

3. Further to this, the article reported: “At Tameside magistrates court, Parsons of Ashton-under-Lyne pleaded guilty to two charges of being the owner of a dog dangerously out of control causing injury and two charges of possessing or having custody of a fighting dog […] Dangerous dogs charges against Wallace who lives with her husband-to-be were withdrawn”.

4. The article also reported: “The incident occurred on October 23 last year after the girl, - who cannot be named - went to the club with her father to clear up after a party a held a few days earlier”.

5. The article also reported a number of quotes from the prosecutor. This included: “She [the victim] has gone for surgery and later plastic surgery and also physiotherapy. The two dog owners stayed at the scene and then they were arrested and taken to the local police station"; and "[r]egarding the circumstances, it is right to say that this clearly caused a great deal of distress to both parties concerned in this particular case. The girl received some very serious injuries”.

6. The article also included a photograph of Robert Parsons. Taken from a few feet away, the photograph showed Mr Parsons, in a suit, outside a building. It was captioned: “Parsons and his partner were charged following the incident (Image: Cavendish Press {Manchester} Ltd)”.

7. The article also included a number of other photographs. Two were photographs of Mr Parsons and Ms Wallace. Another was an image of Ms Wallace sitting on a sofa, and holding two dogs. The captions all stated: “(Image: Robert Parsons / Cavendish Press {Manchester} Ltd)”.

8. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it reported that Mr Parsons had been charged with “two charges of possessing or having custody of a fighting dog”. They said that this as inaccurate, and that he had pleaded guilty to “possessing or having custody [of] a banned breed, named a pit bull”.

9. In support of their position, the complainant supplied an email from their legal representatives, which stated:

“A guilty plea was entered to the following charges:  

S3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 being the owner of a dog dangerously out of control causing injury x2  

S1 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Possession of a banned breed dog (pitbull terrier) x2“  

10. In addition, the complainants said that the article was misleading and inaccurate because Ms Wallace was “not at all relevant” to the story, and was not a “participating party in this case” – they said she should not have been named. They also complained that the article breached Clause 9 on this point. Further, they said all charges against her were dropped – not just charges relating to dangerous dog offences – and the article did not make this clear.

11. Further, the complainants said the article was inaccurate because the victim’s surgery was not described as “serious” in court, and the word “savage” was not used to describe the dogs.

12. The complainants also stated that the picture of Ms Wallace and the dogs was her photo – not Mr Parsons’, as the caption said – and the article breached Clause 1 on this point. They later added that the “vast majority” of the photos were from Ms Wallace’s social media.

13. The complainants said the article breached Clause 2 because it included a photograph of Mr Parsons outside court – they said that Mr Parsons was distressed after leaving the court, and that they expected privacy at the time. The complainants also complained under Clause 2 about the use of photographs of Ms Wallace.

14. Further, the complainants also said that they had been harassed, in breach of Clause 3, by the conduct of the photographer when taking the photograph of Mr Parsons. They said the photographer was in court during the trial – the photographer then “hid” outside of the court, before moving in front of them and taking pictures.

15. On 20 September, IPSO made the newspaper aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. On 24 October, IPSO opened an investigation into the complaint.

16. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning first to the alleged inaccuracies raised under Clause 1, it said that its reporter was present in court, and its reference to the charges came directly from Mr Parsons’ charge sheet. It supplied IPSO with the charge sheet, which referred to the following charges:

“Allow a fighting dog to be in public place without muzzle or lead on 29/10/2023 at Tameside, being the owner in charge of a dog to which section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applied, namely a Pitbull type terrier named Reggie, allowed it to be in a public place, namely Mickehurst Cricket Ground, without being muzzled and kept on a lead. Contrary to section 1(2)(d) and (7) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Contrary to section 1(2)(d) and (7) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.”

“Owner / person in charge of dog dangerously out of control causing injury On 29/10/2023 at Tameside, were the owner of a dog, namely a Pitbull type terrier named Reggie, which was dangerously out of control in Micklehurst Cricket Ground and whilst so out of control injured [the victim] a child. Contrary to section 3(1) and (4) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Contrary to section 3(1) and (4) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.”

17. The publication said that, at the hearing, it had been heard that Mr Parsons’ charges were changed to “possession or having custody of a fighting dog”. It said its reporter had confirmed this with a legal advisor after the hearing, and that this was recorded its reporter’s notes. It supplied IPSO with the notes in question; these tallied with what the newspaper said.

18. It also said that, upon receipt of the complaint, it had contacted the court to confirm the complainants’ charges – the court had replied stating that the charges included: “Possess / have custody of a fighting dog x2”. It supplied IPSO with this correspondence. In any event, it noted that section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is titled “dogs bred for fighting”, and states that it applies to “any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier”.

19. Further, the publication stated that the article reported that Ms Wallace had been charged with dangerous dog offences – and did not refer to any other offences - and then made clear they were “withdrawn”. It was satisfied, therefore, that the article was accurate on this point. Given that Ms Wallace had initially been charged with dangerous dog offences, it also said she was clearly relevant to the story, and it denied any breach of Clause 9 on this basis.

20. Regarding the complainant’s contention that the victim’s surgery had been described as “serious”, it referred to its reporter’s notes from the court hearing. The notes stated: “The girl received some very serious injuries”. The publication said that – given the victim was 7 years old, and required plastic surgery – it was not significantly inaccurate to report that her surgery was serious. However, it accepted that by presenting the term "serious" within speech marks, it may have given the misleading impression that the surgery itself was referred to as such by the prosecutor.

21. Accordingly, during the course of IPSO’s investigation on 7 November, the newspaper removed the reference to “serious surgery” from the article. It also added the following correction at the top of the online article, beneath the headline:

“A previous version of this article reported that the 7-year-old victim was 'left needing "serious" surgery.' Although the victim's injuries were indeed described as ‘serious’ by the prosecutor and required plastic surgery, we would like to make clear that the reference to the term "serious" was only made in regards to the victim's injuries by the prosecutor. The article has been amended to clarify this.”

22. The publication denied any breach of Clause 2. Regarding the photographs of Ms Wallace, it said that the images used in the article had all been provided by a third-party agency and taken from Mr Parsons’ social media – however, the newspaper said they had since been removed from his account. Nevertheless, it said that the photographs did not include any private or personal information.

23. The publication also did not accept that the complainant’s concerns regarding the photographer represented a breach of Clause 3. It said that, from the complaint, it was clear that the complainants were aware the photographer was a journalist. Further, it said the photographer was entitled to take photographs in a public place.

24. In response, the complainants maintained that Mr Parsons charges had been read out as: “in possession of a banned breed, named a pit bull”. At this stage, they supplied an image of Mr Parsons’ formal charge sheet, which referred to charges of:

“On 29/10/2023 at Tameside, were the owner of a dog, namely a Pitbull type terrier named Reggie, which was dangerously out of control in Micklehurst Cricket Ground and whilst so out of control injured [the victim] a child. Contrary to section 3(1) and (4) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.”

“On or in 29 Oct 2023 at Micklehurst Cricket Club in the country of Greater Manchester had in your possession or custody a dog to which section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Acy 1991 applied, namely Pitbull terrier named Reggie.

Contrary to section 1(3) and (7) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.”

25. On 8 November – during IPSO’s investigation - the complainant raised a further alleged inaccuracy. They said the incident happened on 29 October, and not 23 October, as the article reported.

26. With regard to the disputed dates, the publication said that it did not consider this significant, given the seriousness of the incident and the fact that the discrepancy was only a matter of days. Nevertheless, on 19 November, five days after IPSO passed the publication the complainant’s correspondence referencing this inaccuracy, it amended the article to refer to 29 October, and published the following footnote correction:

“A previous version of this article incorrectly reported that the attack took place of 23 October 2023. In fact, the attack happened on 29 October 2023. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly.”

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 9 (Reporting of Crime)*

i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.

Findings of the Committee

27. The Committee began with the complainant’s concerns that the article had inaccurately reported Mr Parsons’ charges as “two charges of possessing or having custody of a fighting dog”.

28. The complainants initially said that Mr Parsons was charged with: “possessing or having custody [of] a banned breed, named a pit bull”, and had supplied a letter from their legal representative which referred to this. They had subsequently supplied an image of his formal charge sheet, which included: “had in your possession or custody a dog to which section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Acy 1991 applied […]. Contrary to section 1(3) and (7) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991”.

29. The Committee took into account the complainant’s position. It also had regard, however, for the information put forward by the publication – via its reporter’s notes, it had demonstrated that it had recorded the complainant’s charges as heard at the hearing. It had since confirmed its information with the court who had referred to the charge of “possess / have custody of a fighting dog”.

30. The Committee also had regard for the legislation in question, and the circumstances of the incident. While the two parties disputed the precise charge, it was not in dispute that the complainants been in possession of pit bulls, and that Mr Parsons been charged under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. This was clear from the charge sheet submitted by the complainants, and the Committee noted that section 1 of the aforementioned act is titled “dogs bred for fighting”, and states that it applies to: “any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier”. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the article was not inaccurate or misleading where it reported Mr Parsons’ charges. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

31. The complainants had also said that the article was inaccurate and misleading because it named Ms Wallace in relation to the incident. They had also complained that it did not make clear that all her charges had been dropped, not just those related to dangerous dog offences.

32. The Committee noted, firstly, that naming Ms Wallace in relation to the incident was not an inaccuracy in and of itself – and that concerns regarding the identification of relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crimes generally falls under Clause 9.

33. The article reported that Ms Wallace was “charged with dangerous dog offences” – it subsequently stated that: “[d]angerous dogs charges against Wallace […] were withdrawn”. As the article only reported that Ms Wallace had been charged with dangerous dog offences, the Committee did not consider that omitting to report other charges against her had also been withdrawn rendered the article inaccurate or misleading – equally, it considered that the article made perfectly clear her charges had been withdrawn. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

34. The Committee then turned to the remainder of the complainants’ concerns under Clause 1. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, on 8 November, the complaints had complained that the article was inaccurate because the incident happened on 29 October, and not 23 October, as reported.

35. The Committee considered that this inaccuracy constituted a failure on the publication’s account to take care not to publish inaccurate information. It had accepted the article was inaccurate on this point, and the Committee considered that this information would have been heard in court, and noted that it was evident on the complainant’s charge sheet, which the newspaper had later supplied as part of IPSO’s investigation. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i). The Committee also considered that the inaccuracy was significant – it is important to accurately report on matters heard in court, to ensure the transparency of the legal system and to serve the principle of open justice. The error therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

36. This concern had been raised during IPSO’s investigation. It had been passed to the newspaper, and on 19 November, five days after being made aware by IPSO of the inaccuracy, the newspaper had amended the online article and published a footnote correction. The Committee considered that a gap of five days between being made aware of the inaccuracy – which had only been raised with the publication during the IPSO investigation, and separately from all of the other points raised – to the ultimate publication of the correction represented sufficiently prompt action for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of Clause 1 (ii).

37. Further, and where the inaccuracy was a single reference in the text of the article – and had been removed – the Committee also considered that a footnote was sufficient to prominently correct the record.

38. Finally, the Committee considered that the wording of the correction corrected the record – it made clear that the article had inaccurately reported that the attack took place of 23 October, and that it had actually occurred on 29 October. In light of these factors, the Committee therefore considered that the newspaper had corrected the inaccuracy in line with its obligations under Clause 1 (ii) – there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

39. The complainants had also said that the article was inaccurate because, in court, the victim’s surgery was not described as “serious” in court. The newspaper had accepted that the victim’s surgery had not been described as “serious” – rather, the prosecution had said that the victim’s injuries were “serious”. This was demonstrated by its reporter’s notes, which referred to: “The girl received some very serious injuries”.

40. In this instance, the Committee had regard for the circumstances of the incident, and the injuries sustained by the victim. The article reported on a seven-year-old child being attacked by two pit bull dogs. As reported in the article, the victim had had to undergo plastic surgery, and the prosecution had described her injuries as “very serious”.

41. In light of this, the Committee did not consider that describing the injuries as “serious” constituted a breach of Clause 1. It was inaccurate, however, the Committee did not consider that the inaccuracy arose due to a particular failure on the part of the publication – although it had inadvertently attributed the severity of the victim’s injuries as the severity of her surgery, the reporter had correctly recorded the prosecution’s comments that the victim received “serious injuries”, which the article also went on to make clear. The Committee also did not consider that this constituted a significant inaccuracy, where it was not in dispute that the victim had had to undergo surgery, and had received serious injuries. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point, although the Committee welcomed that the publication had corrected the record on this point regardless.

42. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concern that the word “savage” was not used to describe the dogs, and the article was therefore inaccurate. The Committee recognised that the article did not report the term “savage” had been heard in court – it did not appear in quotes, but rather, the article simply reported that the complainants’ dogs “savage[d]” girl”, and “savaged a 7-year-old”. The Committee therefore considered this to be the publication’s characterisation of the incident and, in light of the injuries the complainants’ dogs had caused the victim, it did not consider it to be inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1.

43. The complainants also stated that the article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, as the captions of a number of photographs attributed them to Mr Parsons. The publication had stated that the photographs had been provided by a separate agency, and taken from Mr Parsons’ social media – they had since been removed, however, and so it had not been able to demonstrate its position.

44. The Committee took this into account. It also noted, however, that the photograph captions attributed the images to Mr Parsons, and also to the agency who had provided them to the newspaper. In light of this, it did not consider the article to be inaccurate or misleading on this point. The Committee did not consider the original ownership of the photographs significant to the context of the article, given that the article focused on the incident involving the dogs and the complainants’ subsequent legal proceedings – and the question of who owned the pictures showing one of the parties in the case was not material to the reporting of this incident - and the captions made clear that the images had been supplied by a third-party agency. There was no breach of Clause 1.

45. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 9 that Ms Wallace had been named, and photographed, in the article. Clause 9 is clear that relatives, or friends, of individuals convicted or accused of crimes can be identified if they are genuinely relevant to the story at hand. It was not in dispute that Ms Wallace had also been arrested on the day of the attack, and had been charged alongside Mr Parsons. While the Committee noted her charges had been withdrawn, she was clearly relevant to the story of the article, which was a report on the incident in question, and of the court proceedings that followed. There was no breach of Clause 9.

46. Following this, the Committee turned to Clause 2 – the complainants said the article breached Clause 2 because it included a photograph of Mr Parsons outside court, when they had expected privacy. The complainants also complained about the use of photographs of Ms Wallace.

47. The Committee was clear that, in considering possible breaches of Clause 2, it will take into account the extent to which the disputed information is in the public domain. It will also take into account the extent to which the information is inherently private. Regarding the image of Mr Parsons outside court, it was not in dispute that Mr Parsons was in a public place at the time the photograph had been taken. The Committee also did not consider that the image showed anything inherently private – while it appreciated Mr Parsons may have been distressed at the time, this was not evident in the image, which simply showed him in a public area.

48. Regarding the use of images of Mr Parsons and Ms Wallace from the social media, the Committee noted that the newspaper had not been able to demonstrate they were available on Mr Parsons’ accounts – they had said that they had been removed. Nevertheless, the third-party agency had been able to access the images, and the complainants themselves had stated that the images appeared on Ms Wallaces’ social media accounts. In these circumstances, the Committee considered it likely the information was already in the public domain, given that they could be accessed online and the complainants had not alleged that the third-party agency had improperly gained access to the accounts.

49. In any event, the Committee also did not consider that the images showed anything inherently private – rather, they simply showed Mr Parsons and Ms Wallaces’ likenesses, as well as images of the dogs. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the complainants had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the reported images. There was no breach of Clause 2.

50. The Committee then turned to Clause 3, and considered the complainants’ concerns regarding the taking of the image of Mr Parsons. The complainant had stated that they had been harassed by the photographer and the journalist outside the court – the photographer had, allegedly, got in front of them and taken pictures.

51. Clause 3 is intended to prevent persistent pursuit, repeated instances of unwanted contact from journalists, and intimidating behaviour – it does not prevent any contact between journalists and members of the public. Further, it does not prevent journalists photographing individuals; rather, it says that journalists should not photograph individuals once asked to desist.

52. The Committee did not consider that the photographer’s conduct amounted to intimidating conduct in and of itself. While the complainants had expressed dissatisfaction that Mr Parsons had been photographed, photography is not prohibited under the Editors’ Code. The only cases where such photography would be prohibited would be in cases where a photograph had been taken despite a request to desist from doing so, or in circumstances where the conduct of the photographer was intimidating or harassing in some other way. Given in this case the complainants had only said that they had been photographed, this did not represent a breach of Clause 3.

Conclusions

53. The complaint was partly upheld.

Remedial action required

54. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 02/09/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/03/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainants 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.

Correction

Due to an administrative error, IPSO initially recorded this decision as “No breach”, when it should have been recorded as being “partly upheld” to reflect the findings. This was corrected on 16 May 2025.