05524-24 Lai v manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Rosemary Lai complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that manchestereveningnews.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Woman's vicious £60k revenge on her ex-fiancé after he broke off their wedding”, published on 16 January 2024.

2. The article reported on the complainant’s conviction for fraud. It opened by reporting:

“A 'materialistic' fraudster tried to con her former fiancé out of more than £60,000 after he broke off their wedding. Rosemary Lai, who promotes herself on social media as a model, has been locked up after she forged letters from bailiffs in a bid to force her ex to hand over the huge sum. She branded a statement, which her ex submitted to the court detailing the impact of her crimes, as 'mainly lies’. […] ‘The defendant was very money focused in the relationship and materialistic,’ prosecutor [a named individual] said. The victim said he paid for 'everything' during their relationship.

Lai, 31, from Longsight, was aware he had inherited a 'sum of money' and a property following the death of his grandmother”.

3. Further to this, the article also reported: “Following their break-up, in 2019 […] Lai contacted [her ex-partner’s] father to report she was unable to contact her ex because her phone was broken. He bought her a new phone, but she never contacted her ex with it. Over the next three years, the victim began to receive letters, claiming to be from bailiffs, relating to payments of £63,488 which he was said to owe. The money, which was said to be related to payments for wedding venues, was demanded over seven different letters. As part of the scam, Lai forged letters which claimed to have been sent from the county court, using fake claim numbers”.

4. The article also reported that in “a statement read to the court on his behalf, Lai's ex-said: ‘Rosemary has made me feel depressed, down and worthless as she always used to say she would replace me with a better bloke’ […] “I paid for everything in the relationship, all the meals and trips out for her because I did love her and I wanted her to have a better life but she has taken advantage of me”.

5. Finally, the article also noted: “Lai, of [a named street], Longsight, pleaded guilty to one count of fraud; and three counts of making or supplying articles for use in fraud. She was jailed for two years and three months”.

6. The article also included a photograph of the complainant. The photograph showed the complainant looking into the camera, and was taken from the shoulders upwards.

7. The complainant said the article breached Clause 1. Firstly, she disputed that she “tried to con her former fiancé out of more than £60,000”, and that she “forged letters which claimed to have been sent from the county court, using fake claim numbers”. She said that she did not gain any money from her ex-partner, and that she never defrauded him. In light of this, she disputed the accuracy of the article’s headline. She also said that the claim references “were from the courts and were not fake” – she said she had issues with processing the paperwork, which caused delays and ultimately duplicates being sent to her ex-partner. She also said the court found “no proof” she committed the offences.

8. The complainant also stated that she plead guilty to “one count of fraud by false representation”, and that her conviction was being appealed, and reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. She also said that she had recently completed a DBS check, which she supplied to IPSO, which came back clean – in light of these factors, she considered the article to be inaccurate.

9. Further, the complainant also said the article breached Clause 1 where it reported a number of statements from her ex-partner. She disputed the following line: “Rosemary has made me feel depressed, down and worthless as she always used to say she would replace me with a better bloke” - she said this was untrue and she had never said it. She also disputed that her ex-partner “paid for everything in the relationship”.

10. Similarly, the complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that she was “very money focused in the relationship and materialistic”, and that she “was aware [her ex-partner] had inherited a 'sum of money' and a property following the death of his grandmother”. She said her ex-partner did not receive any money, and disputed the description of her.

11. Further, she disputed that her ex-partner’s father bought her a new phone and that she never contacted her ex-partner with it – she said that her ex-partner’s father bought her a phone as he had broken it, and that the article was reporting a one-sided version of events.

12. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 2 by publishing the image of her – she said this was taken from a private social media account without her consent. She also said that reporting her street level address breached Clause 2, due to safeguarding concerns.

13. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said, firstly, that the article was based on information heard in court at the complainant’s hearing, which it was entitled to report and had done so accurately. In support of its position, it supplied the prosecution’s opening note which, it said, was read out in court. The note included the following extracts:

1. On the 8th of November 2023, at PTPH, the defendant entered guilty pleas to the indictment at B4.

The Facts Count 1

2. The defendant and the complainant [a named individual] met in 2017 on an internet dating site. She became aware that the complainant he

inherited a sum of money after his Grandmother passed away [sic]. The

defendant was very money focused in the relationship and materialistic.

[…]

5. In 2019 […] The defendant contacted his father and said she cannot get in touch with him while he is in hospital as her phone is broken, when her father bought her a new phone she never contacted the complainant. This demonstrate that she knew how vulnerable the complainant was at the time the offending started [sic].

6. In late 2019 the complainant started receiving fraudulent letters purporting to be from bailiffs sent by the defendant. The amount of money requested across the letters was £63,488.07.

Counts 2, 3 & 4

7. To make her fraudulent bailiff letters appear genuine the defendant forged three claim forms which purported to have been issued by the County Court and contained fake claim numbers.

VPS

8. Rosemary has made me feel depressed, down and worthless as she always used to say she would replace me with a better bloke. My mental health has deteriorated since we broke up and she was sending me these court letters. I paid for everything in the relationship, all the meals and trips out for her because I did love her and I wanted her to have a better life but she has taken advantage of me.

14. Additionally, the publication supplied the complainant’s indictment. The indictment referred to four counts – one count of “FRAUD, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2000”, and three counts of “MAKING OR SUPPLYING ARTICLES FOR USE IN FRAUDS, contrary to section 7(1) of the Fraud Act 2006”.

15. The publication also supplied its reporter’s shorthand notes from the court hearing. The notes referred to the reported figure of £63,488; statements attributed to the judge: “You forged three claim forms purporting to be issued by the county court”; and quotes attributed to the complainant’s ex-partner’s statement, which included that: “Rosemary has made me feel depressed, down and worthless" and "I paid for everything in the relationship”.

16. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It said that the article only reported part of the complainant’s address, which it said was the normal procedure. It also said that the image of the complainant only showed her likeness – and thus did not include any private information – and was taken from her publicly accessible Facebook page. It supplied IPSO with the Facebook page, which was available to be viewed.

17. In response, the complainant also said that, as far as she was aware, she only plead guilty to one count of fraud – she also said that she did not recall what was said in the court room. However, the complainant said that, as her case was being taken to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and she had supplied a clean DBS certificate, her conviction was “irrelevant”, and the article was therefore inaccurate.

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

18. The Committee was clear from the outset that newspapers are responsible for accurately reporting what is heard in court, they are not responsible for the accuracy of what is heard by the court.

19. The Committee began by considering the reporting of the complainant’s charges. She had stated that she only pleaded guilty to one count of fraud, whereas the article reported that she: “pleaded guilty to one count of fraud; and three counts of making or supplying articles for use in fraud”. The publication had supplied the complainant’s indictment, which demonstrated that she had been charged with one count of fraud, as well as three counts of making or supplying articles for use in fraud. The publication had also supplied the prosecution’s opening note – which made clear that it had been heard aloud in court that the complainant “plead guilty to the indictment”.

20. The Committee appreciated that the complainant disputed this, however, where the publication had provided the indictment, which included four separate counts, and it had been heard in court that she had pleaded guilty to the indictment, the Committee were satisfied that the publication had taken due care, and the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading on this point. The Committee was also clear that, although the complainant may be appealing her conviction, and it may be under review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the article was not inaccurate or misleading to report that she had been convicted in the first place. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

21. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s contention that the article was inaccurate because she did not defraud any monies from her ex-partner, and because the claim documents she sent were not fraudulent. The Committee recognised, firstly, that the article did not report that she had actually obtained £60,000 from her ex-partner – rather, its headline referred to a “£60k revenge”, and the opening line of the article made clear that she: “tried to con her former fiancé out of more than £60,000”.

22. Further, the Committee also had regard for the prosecution’s opening note, which demonstrated that it had been heard in court that the complainant sent “fraudulent letters purporting to be from bailiffs”, which requested “£63,488.07”, and that to do so, she had: “forged three claim forms which purported to have been issued by the County Court and contained fake claim numbers”. The reporter’s notes from the hearing also made reference to the alleged figure, and included the following line attributed to the judge: “You forged three claim forms purporting to be issued by the county court”.

23. In light of this, the Committee was satisfied that the disputed information was heard in court – and the article was not inaccurate or misleading to report it. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

24. The Committee then turned to the disputed statements attributed to the complainant’s ex-partner – including that: “Rosemary has made me feel depressed, down and worthless as she always used to say she would replace me with a better bloke”, and that he: “paid for everything”. The Committee recognised that the article clearly attributed these statements to the complainant’s ex-partner – they were prefaced with the words: “In a statement read to the court on his behalf, Lai's ex-said […]”. It also noted, again, that newspapers are responsible for accurately reporting what is heard in court – the publication had demonstrated, via the prosecution’s opening note and their reporter’s notes, that this information had been heard in court. The publication had taken due care, and the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading on this point – there was no breach of Clause 1.

25. Next, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns that the article was inaccurate to report that she was “very money focused in the relationship and materialistic”; that she “was aware [her ex-partner] had inherited a 'sum of money' and a property following the death of his grandmother”; and that her ex-partner’s father bought her a new phone and that she never contacted her ex-partner with it.

26. Again, the Committee noted that these statements were all heard in court – the publication had demonstrated this by supplying the prosecution’s opening note. It also noted that, while the complainant disputed the veracity of these statements, she had not disputed that they were heard in court. In the Committee’s view, therefore, the publication had taken due care, and the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading on these points – there was no breach of Clause 1.

27. The complainant had also stated that the article was presenting a one-sided view of the matter, in breach of Clause 1. The Committee was clear that newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code - articles also do not need to be balanced, as long as publications take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. Where the Committee did not consider that the article included any inaccurate or misleading information, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

28. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2. When considering when the publication of material represents a possible breach of Clause 2, the Code is clear that the Committee will consider the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain – the publication had supplied the complainant’s Facebook page, demonstrating that the image of her published in the article was publicly available. The Committee also noted that the image only showed her likeness – not something over which an individual generally has an expectation of privacy. In light of this, the Committee did not consider that the use of the image represented an intrusion into the complainant’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

29. The complainant had also complained that the article breached Clause 2 by including part of her address. The Committee noted that newspapers are generally entitled to report information that has been disclosed in open court, and a defendant’s address is typically given in court to accurately identify defendants. While the Committee appreciated that the complainant had safeguarding concerns, in these circumstances, it did not consider that publishing part of her address represented an intrusion into the complainant’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

30. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

31. N/A

Date complaint received: 06/09/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/11/2024

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.