Resolution Statement – 05690-24 Beckinsale v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. Kate Beckinsale complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Worry about mum made me lose weight, says Kate Beckinsale”, published on 25 July 2024.

2. The article was a “diary” piece which reported on comments made by the complainant at a gala event. The article said the complainant “has spoken about the ‘difficult’ time she is going through” and gave details of these difficulties, which included her mother’s recent illness. The article also reported on a conversation between the reporter and the complainant about the complainant’s recent experiences relating to her health and family circumstances.

3. A longer version of the article also appeared online under the headline “RICHARD EDEN: Kate Beckinsale opens up about the 'difficult' time she's going through with her mother's cancer”. This version of the article reported the complainant had “revealed” she had lost weight due to “her mother's cancer diagnosis” “as she hit back at trolls” on social media. The online article contained multiple images of the complainant.

4. The complainant alleged the reporter engaged in “misrepresentation and subterfuge” in breach of Clause 10 because she misrepresented herself as part of the welcoming committee at the gala event. The complainant said the reporter gave this impression as she was dressed in evening wear and was the first person to approach her at the end of the red carpet. The complainant said she believed this was a deliberate strategy to trick her into making comments which she otherwise would not have provided. She said the brief interaction with the journalist ended when an event organiser who intervened, said the journalist’s behaviour was wholly inappropriate and removed the journalist while apologising. The complainant said this demonstrated that the event was not aware or supportive of the journalist’s behaviour. The complainant said she only responded to the questions because she believed she was having a private conversation with a staff member involved in the event.

5. The complainant also said the article was in breach of Clause 2. She said this was because she had revealed what she considered was private information – which was later published – to the reporter without realising who she was speaking to.

6. The complainant said the article was in breach of Clause 2 because it included references to highly sensitive information regarding her physical and mental health, and the health of her close family members.

7. The complainant said the article was in breach of Clause 1 as the headline gave the misleading impression that she had provided comments to the publication connecting any possible recent weight loss to her mother’s cancer diagnosis; she said she had not made any remarks on this topic to the publication, and she had not said her recent weight loss was due to her mother’s illness. 

8. The publication did not accept there was a breach of Clause 10. It denied its reporter had pretended to be a staff member, and said this would have been unnecessary because she had been invited to attend the gala as a journalist. It said its reporter was a well-known and experienced diary reporter. It said the reporter had been invited to the event by a representative for the gala and was standing in the press area of the red carpet with other reporters to interview celebrities which was not accessible to the public. It said the public relations representative for the event had been present when the reporter and the complainant were talking. It said the public relations representative had asked the reporter to ask the complainant specific questions about the event, which demonstrated that the PR representative understood the reporter was a journalist. The publication said the reporter had continued to interview other celebrities and had attended the event dinner and after-party after she had spoken to the complainant. The publication denied any third-party had subsequently “intervened” and that the reporter was removed from the event. Notwithstanding, the publication believed it was unlikely the complainant would have thought that an individual standing in the press area interviewing celebrities was not a journalist, and the complainant admitted she did not ask the reporter whether she was a journalist. The publication said just because someone mistakenly does not realise someone is a journalist does not mean that there has been any subterfuge or misrepresentation.

9. The publication denied a breach of Clause 1 regarding the headline. It said the column relied on various correspondents, as was common with “diary” pieces. It said the use of the first-person singular in such pieces is a well-known and uncontroversial device.

10. While the newspaper did not accept a breach of Clause 1, it offered to print the following wording to resolve the complaint:

A headline to diary item on 25 July article inaccurately summarised comments made by Kate Beckinsale. We are happy to make clear that she did not say that her recent weight loss was due to her mother’s illness, and we apologise for any distress caused.

11. The complainant did not accept this as a resolution to her complaint.

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 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*

i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

Mediated Outcome

12. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

13. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the article and print the following correction on page 2 of the newspaper:

A headline to a diary item on 25 July inaccurately summarised comments made by Kate Beckinsale. We are happy to make clear that she did not say that her recent weight loss was due to her mother’s illness, and we apologise to Ms Beckinsale and her mother Judy Loe for any distress caused.

14. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.

15. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 11/12/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/03/2025