05504-24 Wallace and Parsons v Manchester Evening News

Summary of Complaint

1. Harriet Wallace and Robert Parsons complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Manchester Evening News breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in publication of an article headlined “Pitbulls savaged girl aged 7 at cricket club”, published on 5 September 2024.

2. The article appeared – which appeared on page 9 of the newspaper – opened by reporting: “A man’s two Pitbull terriers savaged a seven-year-old girl as he and his fiancee were walking them around the boundary of his rural cricket club”.

3. Subsequently, it reported:

During the attack, on October 23 last year, the Pitbulls, named Reggie and Barney, grabbed the girl’s leg, with one refusing to let go despite her father intervening and grabbing the animal by its mouth.

The victim was rushed to hospital where she underwent surgery for her ‘serious’ wounds. She also had plastic surgery and physiotherapy following the incident

Parsons, who is also an opening batsman at the picturesque Micklehurst Cricket Club in Mossley, Tameside, was detained by police at the pitchside along with his 26-year old fiancee Harriet Wallace. Both were later charged with dangerous dog offences and the animals were destroyed.

At Tameside magistrates court, Parsons, of [a named street], 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.

The maximum sentence for the offences are five years in jail. Dangerous dogs charges against Wallace, who lives with her husband-to-be, were withdrawn.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 included an image of Robert Parsons. Roughly the width of half a column of text, it showed his face, looking away from the camera.

6. The article also appeared online, published on 4 September, under the headline: “Man’s two Pitbull terriers savaged little girl, 7, at his cricket club”.

7. The online article also included the image of Mr Parsons. A larger version of the same image, taken from a few feet away, the photograph showed Mr Parsons, in a suit, outside a building.

8. The complainants 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 a banned breed, named a pit bull”.

9. In support of their position, the complainants 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. The complainants said the article breached Clause 2 because it reported their address. The complainants also 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.

12. 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.

13. On 20 September, IPSO made the newspaper aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. On 14 October, IPSO opened an investigation into the complaint.

14. 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.”

15. 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 the 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.

16. 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”.

17. 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.

18. The publication denied any breach of Clause 2. Regarding the reporting of the complainants’ address, it said that the article reported a partial address, which is standard practice for court reports to distinguish between people of the same name. This did not represent a breach of the complainants’ privacy.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 online 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

23. 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”.

24. 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”.

25. 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”.

26. 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 complainant, 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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).

32. 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).

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

34. 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 the online article in line with its obligations under Clause 1 (ii) – there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

35. It had not, however, published a correction in respect of the print article. This was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) as – in line with the requirement of Clause 1 (ii) that corrections should be published with due prominence - it is generally expected that inaccurate information published in the print edition of a newspaper should be corrected in the same medium.

36. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 9 that Ms Wallace had been named 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.

37. 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.

38. 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. There was no breach of Clause 2 in respect of the image.

39. The complainant had also complained that the reporting of their address breached Clause 2. The Committee noted that the address was partial – it reported the complainant’s street, not their specific house number. It also took into account that, in accordance with the principle of open justice, newspapers are generally entitled to report information that has been disclosed in open court - a defendant’s address is typically given in court to accurately identify defendants. In these circumstances, and where the complainants had not denied that the address was heard in court, the Committee did not consider that reporting it represented an intrusion into their private or family life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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

43. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

44. Having upheld the complaint under Clause 1, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

45. The Committee considered that the article had inaccurately reported the date of the incident. This was a passing reference, however, in an article that the Committee considered was otherwise accurate. The newspaper had also corrected the inaccuracy in respect of its online article, in line with its obligations under Clause 1 (ii). However, it had not published a print correction. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a print correction was the appropriate remedy.

46. The correction should acknowledge that the article reported the attack had happened on 23 October 2023 – it should also put the correct position on record, that the attack happened on 29 October 2023. As the inaccuracy had appeared on page 9, the correction should appear on page 9 or further forward.

47. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 04/09/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/03/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant 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.