Ruling

Resolution Statement – 05763-24 A complainant v Mail Online

  • Complaint Summary

    A complainant complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article published on 5 October 2024.

    • Published date

      23rd January 2025

    • Outcome

      Resolved - IPSO mediation

    • Code provisions

      2 Privacy, 3 Harassment

Summary of Complaint

1. A complainant complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article published on 5 October 2024.

2. The article reported on the complainant’s current marriage as well as details of her previous offences. The article included an image of the complainant in her garden.

3. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 2 as it had published an image of her in her garden while her young child was at home. She said that the photograph had been taken using a long lens camera. The complainant said the photographer’s car was parked outside her house on a private section of the road. She believed approaching her home without any former contact by phone or email intruded into her expectation of privacy.

4. She also said the publication breached Clause 3 as on 4 October, she had attached a written notice on her front door making clear she did not want to make any comment and requesting journalists did not knock or ring her door bell. She considered the publication’s actions had ignored her request to desist.

5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the agency that was responsible for taking the image confirmed that the complainant was visible from the road, and the photograph was taken from the public section of the road. However, it offered to remove the photograph in the interest of resolving the complaint.

6. The newspaper said that the photographer did not approach the complainant’s door and therefore did not see the notice she had affixed to it. It also said that it had not received any private advisory notice from IPSO requesting it desist from her house. The publication said as it was unaware the complainant did not wish to be approached or contacted; Clause 3 was not engaged.

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

8. The newspaper said that the road was public and provided a map to support its position. The publication said the complainant was walking by the side of her property which was located a few metres from the road. The publication accepted the photographer was located “some distance” from the house, however said the complainant was visible from the road when he took the image without any long distance photographic equipment.

9. The complainant said she had captured the photographer on CCTV and could demonstrate he was on private land. She further said she was not located a few meters from the road. The complainant provided arial images of where she was stood in the photo in relation to the road and the car; a photograph of the private road sign, and a screenshot from the CCTV footage showing the photographer’s car. She said the car was 183 metres away from where she was standing at her property.

10. The publication said the photographer was around 165 metres away from the complainant when he took the photograph, and provided a screenshot of Google Streetview to support its position. It said Google Streetview indicated it was a public road and that members of the public would be able to see the complainant from if they were positioned closer. Further it said that the photograph depicted her likeness and did not show her doing anything private.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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.

Mediated Outcome

11. The complainant said she would consider the complaint resolved if the newspaper removed the photograph and sent her a private apology.

12. The newspaper agreed to this.

13. The complaint was resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction.

14. 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: 05/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/01/2025