05923-24 A woman v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “'Why not call myself Lady Carbisdale?' The trans barrister, a restored Scottish castle and a feud with the locals”, published on 12 October 2024.

2. The article – which appeared in print on page 59 – was a profile of a woman who had bought a castle in the Scottish Highlands and had subsequently entered into a dispute with other local residents. The complainant was one of the local residents in question. The article reported “the main disagreement” between the locals and the subject of the article was her “plans to buy 16 hectares of extra land” and that the “matter came to be discussed on November 21 last year by Ardgay & District community council”. It stated the meeting “ended in chaos”, and that some present accused the subject of the article “of becoming abusive and using bad language”. It said the subject “said she cannot recall doing so, although the meeting was ‘rowdy’”. It said the police referred to the incident as a “disturbance” and that “it was not [the subject of the article] but another woman who was given a police warning after a disturbance in the aftermath of a council meeting a year ago”.

3. The article also reported:

“Two days after the meeting, [the subject of the article], she says, was assaulted at a nearby community hall. Arriving to deliver a business plan, she found a group of children playing, she thinks, badminton. According to her, a man exclaimed, ‘there's children in here’ and pushed her back. ‘I hit the wall and I fell on the floor. And I got up and I called the police and I said, “look, this I consider an assault."' She was, she needlessly adds, ’certainly not endangering children’. A police officer arrived but none of the eight adults who she believes witnessed the fracas came forward. No action was taken. The violence is, in her telling, unforgivable. But is her language inflammatory?”

4. The article also appeared in a substantially similar form online, under the headline, “The feud that’s made a trans barrister sell her Scottish castle”.

5. The complainant said that the article was in breach of Clause 1 because it was inaccurate to report that “it was not [the subject of the article] but another woman who was given a police warning after a disturbance in the aftermath of a council meeting a year ago”. The complainant said, contrary to what the article claimed, the subject of the article had been given a police warning in relation to her behaviour after the meeting. The complainant provided an email from a police officer which said the subject of the article “has been issued a Recorded Police warning” in regard to the incident.

6. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to refer to the meeting as “rowdy”. She said the word “rowdy” implied there were two factions arguing, but the meeting had been conducted in a polite and respectful manner. The complainant said issues only began after the meeting when she was threatened by the subject of the article, who behaved aggressively towards her.

7. The complainant also said the account of the events given in the article about what had happened at the community hall was inaccurate. She said she had been present and events transpired differently.

8. The complainant said the article was a “one-sided distorted version of the events”, as it omitted to mention information, she considered important about the subject of the article and her dispute with the local residents.

9. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2, because she said she had chosen not to disclose the events of the meeting, but the article had still reported on it.

10. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 3 because she considered it to be a one-sided version of events.

11. The publication said it had taken care not to report inaccurate information in its reporting of the police caution. It said its reporter had been assured by the subject of the article during their interview that she did not behave abusively at the meeting. It also said that, when the reporter became aware of the complainant’s position that the article’s subject had received a police warning, he contacted her, and she told him categorically that she had not received the warning. It said this was reported in good faith, as the reporter had no reason to doubt it.

12. The newspaper argued it was not clear how it could have verified this information, as police warnings in Scotland are not a matter of public record. It said there was no obvious way of establishing whether one has been issued to a particular individual or not. It also said that, when its reporter contacted Police Scotland after the article‘s publication, it would not discuss the matter. It said this remained the position and the police would not confirm or deny the identity of the person who received the warning. The police also would not confirm the authenticity of the email, apparently from a serving police officer, submitted by the complainant.

13. At any rate, the newspaper did not consider the alleged inaccuracy to be significant. It said, without official police confirmation, it could not be certain it had made an error. It added it was no more than a passing reference in an article of several thousand words, and not significant in the context of an in-depth profile of a complex individual at odds with her neighbours. It said the article’s accurate picture of a dispute which had been “both bitter and often extremely heated” was not significantly altered by the issuing of such a warning to one or other party in the dispute.

14. Notwithstanding the fact the newspaper did not consider the alleged inaccuracy to be significant, on 31 October, 3 days after the publication was passed the complaint by IPSO, the newspaper offered to amend the online article so it said, “police referred to it as a ‘disturbance’ and said they later issued a woman with ‘a recorded police warning’”. On the same day, the newspaper also to publish the following correction in its online and print corrections and clarifications column.

“We said it was not [the subject of the article] but another woman who was given a police warning after a disturbance in the aftermath of a council meeting (Magazine, Oct 12). We have since been provided with evidence suggesting this was inaccurate. We are happy to set this on record.”

The correction was subsequently published on 8 November 2024.

15. The newspaper said, given it was unable to verify the matter one way or the other, the wording of its correction accurately reflected the facts as it understood them: that it had seen evidence suggesting it was inaccurate to say the warning was given to another woman. It said in the absence of police confirmation, it was difficult to see how much further it could reasonably go to resolve the complainant’s concerns on this point.

16. The newspaper did not accept it was inaccurate to report the meeting was “rowdy” or to include the subject of the article’s version of events. It said the article made clear to readers that this was the subject’s characterisation of the meeting: the word “rowdy” appeared in quotation marks, and the following paragraphs used phrases such as “she says; “according to her”; and “in her telling” and was directly followed by critical comments from local residents. It said other media reports of the meeting made clear “rowdy” was a reasonable characterisation. It gave examples from various magazines, including one which said, “a local council meeting […] ended in disarray and police were summoned.”

17. The newspaper did not accept it had published a one-sided version of the dispute. It argued the position of the neighbours was well represented, as was the challenging aspects of subject of the article’s conduct and character. It said as well as giving the subject’s account, the article included strong criticisms of her from neighbours and others, noting that they had “few nice things to say about her”, among other criticisms.

18. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2 or Clause 3. It said the complainant was not mentioned in the article and it had no intention to invade the her privacy nor to harass her.

19. The complainant said the fact the subject of the article had a police warning had been in the public domain since before the article was published. The complainant provided two articles to support her position. The first was published on 29 November 2023, and said:

“Police Scotland said it received a report of a disturbance in Carron Place, Ardgay, on November 23. Officers issued advice and a woman received a recorded warning in relation to an earlier ¬disturbance on November 21.”

20. The second article, which was published on 3 Dec 2023, said:

“A millionaire property tycoon given a police warning after a row with locals has vowed to take legal action against anyone who opposes her bid to turn a Highland castle into a playground for the world’s rich.”

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.

Findings of the Committee

21. The Committee wished to emphasise it was not in a position to make a finding over who had received a police warning at the meeting. This was clearly a contentious issue, and in the absence of any official verification, the Committee was not able to definitively establish the correct position. Instead, the Committee’s purpose was to make a finding on whether the publication had reported the matter in a manner which adhered to its obligations under the Editors’ Code.

22. The Committee first considered whether the claim “it was not [the subject of the article] but another woman who was given a police warning after a disturbance in the aftermath of a council meeting a year ago” was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. In this case, while the subject of the article had told the reporter that she had not received a warning (and it was in fact another woman who had), the newspaper did not have confirmation of this from an official source, such as the police. There was easily accessible information in the public domain – the article which referred to “a millionaire property tycoon given a police warning after a row with locals” – which contradicted the subject’s account of events. In addition, it was not, by the publication’s own admission, possible to verify who received the warning – and it could not say with any certainty that it was another woman who had received the warning. In these circumstances, the newspaper should have taken care over the presentation of the claim, to ensure that the status of the allegation – and the fact that it had not been verified or confirmed by any official organisation - was made clear. There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

23. The Committee recognised the reference to the police warning did not appear especially prominently in the article. However, the reported claim was in relation to the serious matter of disciplinary action which would have an impact on the public’s understanding of the criminal justice system. In these circumstances, the misleading way in which the claim was presented was significant and in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii).

24. The correction made clear that the newspaper had since been provided with evidence which suggested its initial report was inaccurate. The Committee considered that in circumstances where it was the presentation of the claim which was misleading and it was not possible to verify – through official means – who had received the warning, this was sufficient to correct the record.

25. The correction was offered 3 days after the publication was made aware of the error, and appeared in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column, where readers understand corrections will appear. The Committee considered this was prompt, as required by Clause 1 (ii).

26. In considering whether the corrections were duly prominent, the Committee noted that it considers many factors when evaluating whether a correction is duly prominent; due prominence is not always equal prominence. When establishing whether the correction was duly prominent, the Committee considered the clear and prompt steps the publication took to resolve the concerns was a factor in its decision on this point. Given this, and where the online article had been amended to remove the inaccurate information and a correction was added promptly to the online corrections and clarifications column – and also appeared in the print version of the column - there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

27. The Committee then considered whether it was inaccurate to report the meeting was “rowdy”. It noted that “rowdy” is a subjective characterisation, without a strict definition. In this case, it was not in dispute that immediately after the meeting one of the participants had received a police warning, and the subject of the article had been accused of “becoming abusive”. In light of this, the Committee considered there was a sufficient basis for characterising the meeting as “rowdy”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

28. The Committee then considered whether it was inaccurate to report on the subject’s account of the events at the community hall. Through the use of phrases such as “according to her”, “she thinks” and “she believes”, the article made abundantly clear it was reporting on a particular and unverified perspective of events. The article also highlighted the partiality of the subject’s version of the incident by directly following it with the question, “the violence is, in her telling, unforgivable. But is her language inflammatory?” As such, the depiction of events was clearly presented as the subject’s perspective of what happened, and was not therefore inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

29. The Committee then considered whether the article was one-sided and whether the omission of some information the complainant considered important rendered it inaccurate. 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. Nor do articles need to be balanced, if publications take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. In this case, the prominence of the subject’s account of events, and omitting further information the complainant considered relevant did not make the article inaccurate or misleading, where it made clear that it was an interview with one side of a contentious dispute. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

30. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2 and Clause 3. Reporting on the events of a public meeting without expressly referring to the complainant did not amount to a breach of the complainant’s privacy. Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when gathering news, including the nature and extent of their contacts with the subject of the story. The complainant’s concern did not relate to this. There was no breach of either Clause on these points.

Conclusions

31. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

32. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 18/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/04/2025