05687-25 Johnson and Ather v shieldsgazette.com

Summary of Complaint

1. Adele Johnson, acting on her own behalf and on behalf of Darren Ather complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that shieldsgazette.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Washington dad took a photo of a 12-year-old boy using a public toilet in South Shields”, published on 7 October 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on Mr Ather’s court appearance. It said a “Washington dad caught taking a photo of an unsuspecting schoolboy using a public toilet had similar images of 13 other males on his mobile phone, a court heard”. It also reported that he “took the snap of the 12-year-old from the underside of an adjoining cubicle” and “[p]olice arrived and a check of the device revealed a photo of the inside of the boy’s cubicle as he used it.”

3. The article also said that Mr Ather “pleaded guilty to a charge of voyeurism – recording a private act”. The article went on to report the District Judge “granted him bail on condition he does not enter any public toilet or have unsupervised contact with any child aged under 16 except his own.”

4. The complainant said the article breached Clause 1 as Mr Ather had not been charged for offences against a 12-year-old boy. She said he hadn’t taken any photographs or videos of children, and that no such images or videos were found on his phone. She clarified that he had pleaded guilty to voyeurism in relation to adult men.

5. The complainant provided a charge sheet which listed the date of arrest as 23 August 2024. The offence was listed as “record[ing] another person doing a private act with the intention that [he] would, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of that person doing the act, knowing that the other person did not consent to [him] recording the act with that intention” between 10 August 2024 and 13 August 2024.

6. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate as Mr Ather had not been added to the sex offenders register.

7. In addition, the complainant said the article breached Clause 2 as it included false information.

8. The complainant also said the article had impacted her children and their mental health in breach of Clause 6. She said they were scared to go to school as a result of the article.

9. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said an experienced court reporter had attended court and reported on the case, and that the article was an accurate reflection of court proceedings. It acknowledged that the charge sheet the complainant provided did not mention offences against a child. However, it said the evidence given in court referenced this offence: the prosecutor had said, “[t]his offence is aggravated by the fact the victim is a child.” It said neither of the charges or evidence were contested in court and the complainant pleaded guilty.

10. The publication provided the court reporter’s shorthand notes of the court proceedings. It said: “The complainant in this case is a 12 year old boy” and “It’s aggravated by the fact the victim was a child.” The listed bail conditions were: “Bail: 1 – not to enter public toilets; 2 – no unsupervised contact with child under 16 other than his own 3 children”. The reporter had also made a note which said: “after the hearing, I spoke the prosecutor and asked [about the location of the charge]. She also confirmed the offence was against a child and Ather had taken photos at the same location of 13 unknown adult males.”

11. On 27 October, the publication contacted the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to confirm if there had been an error at court, and removed the article while awaiting a response. On 30 October, IPSO made the publication aware of the complaint.

12. On 5 November, CPS confirmed there had been an error:

“In relation to this case, two charges were originally authorised by the prosecutor. One attempt voyeurism – this involves the 12 year old boy […].This was not charged by police in error prior to the previous hearing but, as you say, this will now be picked up at sentencing on 27 November – Word of caution - This won’t be a formal charge until that point so it’s not reportable until then. The charge he faced originally was in relation to multiple adult males in Scarborough between 10 - 13 August, to which he pleaded guilty. We think that the prosecutor in Court has read from the review, which contains reference to the other charge and has conflated the two charges – the error was definitely ours.”

13. The publication said it was entitled to report what was said in court, and had the legal privilege to report what had been heard in court as evidence. At any rate, it said the reporter had clarified details with Mr Ather’s legal representative on the day of the hearing, who had confirmed a photograph was taken of the boy – though the photograph only showed the boy’s clothed leg.

14. On 28 November, the newspaper told IPSO that the sentencing had taken place, which it had reported on. It said the complainant had pleaded guilty to the charge relating to the boy at this sentencing.

15. The publication also provided an email from Mr Ather’s legal representative, which was dated 23 December 2025. This email confirmed that Mr Ather had pleaded guilty to a charge relating to the boy.

16. The publication said it did not consider that Clause 2 was engaged.

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 6 (Children)*

i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.

ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the school authorities.

iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless an adult with legal parental responsibility or similarly responsible adult consents.

iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.

v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life.

Findings of the Committee

17. The Committee noted that the publication was responsible for reporting what was heard in court accurately; it was not responsible for ensuring the court itself was accurate, or for independently investigating claims made in court. The Committee’s role, therefore, was to determine whether the newspaper had accurately reported on the court proceedings against the complainant.

18. The Committee considered the complainant’s concern that the article had inaccurately reported a charge for offences against a boy. However, the publication had provided contemporaneous notes from court, which referenced the offences against the boy, and the article accurately reflected the content of these notes. The Committee also noted the reporter had clarified with the prosecutor the details of the case on the day of the hearing, which it considered demonstrated clear care taken not to publish inaccurate information. The Committee was therefore satisfied the newspaper had taken care not to publish inaccurate information. As such there was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

19. The Committee was satisfied that the article had accurately reported what was heard at court. However, it acknowledged that an error had been made during court proceedings, and a separate charge against the complainant had been referenced: The CPS had recorded the charge for voyeurism in relation to the men, but had failed to ask the court to lay a further charge regarding the incident involving the boy.

20. The Committee noted that, when the publication became aware of the potential court error, the publication had taken steps to investigate what had happened and had deleted the article prior to IPSO making it aware of the complaint. In any case, while the Committee noted that there had been an error, this did not have a material impact on the accuracy of the reported incidents, given Mr Ather ultimately pleaded guilty to both offences. It further noted that it was heard in court the complainant had taken a photograph of the boy. For these reasons, the Committee did not consider the article was significantly inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

21. The Committee further noted that the article did not state that the complainant was on the sex offenders list, but that the judge “granted him bail on condition he does not enter any public toilet or have unsupervised contact with any child aged under 16 except his own”. The complainant did not appear to dispute that this condition had been put in place, and the Committee did not therefore consider that the article was inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

22. The Committee next considered the complaint’s concern that the article breached Clause 2. The Committee noted that the Clause relates to the publication of private information. Where the complainant had not set out how the information was private, and had simply said it was inaccurate, the Committee did not consider the concern engaged Clause 2.

23. The Committee turned to Clause 6. It noted that the article did not identify the complainant’s children and the article was a court report which focused on Mr Ather and his crimes. As such, it did not consider the article unnecessarily intruded into the children’s schooling. There was no breach of Clause 6 on this point.

Conclusions

24. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 24/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/03/2026