05984-24 A Woman v mirror.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Woman helps homeless man at Co-op - then he moves into her home beginning campaign of abuse”, published on 25 October 2024.

2. The article reported on a court case, during which an individual had “pleaded guilty to two counts of rape, one count of inflicting grievous bodily harm, three counts of inflicting actual bodily harm, and one count of sexual assault”. The article said the victim in the case “was only rescued after she visited a local bank, where a concerned employee noticed her facial injuries and spotted her abuser waiting outside the building before calling the police”. The article said “[b]efore the end of the hearing, [the Judge] commended bank employee [the complainant] for her actions on the day Hawkins was arrested.”

3. The complainant – the bank employee who had called the police - said that the article breached Clause 2 as it had included her real name without her consent. She said she had requested the police use a different name at court - Martine Phillipe. She said the police had agreed, and following the sentencing had sent her an email sharing the Judge’s words which had used her requested alias: “I commend Martine Phillipe for taking the actions that she did that lead to the defendant being arrested on 1st August 2023”. The complainant said reporting her real name could put her and her family in danger.

4. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It said that, according to the reporter’s notes –which it provided –the name Martine Felipe was used during court proceedings. However, as the reporter was unsure of the spelling they contacted the Prosecutor and a Police Officer to verify it. At this point, the publication said that the reporter was given the complainant’s real name, and that the Police Officer had informed the reporter he could use either name to refer to the complainant. The publication further added that it was satisfied there was no legal obligation not to report the complainant’s real name as there were no court reporting restrictions.

5. The publication also said that, upon receipt of the complaint, it contacted the police and the court to seek further clarity. It was then told, via email from a barrister involved in the court proceedings, that neither she nor the Officer in the Case (OIC) were aware of any reporting restriction in relation to the complainant's name. The email also accepted that the complainant's name was mispronounced and misspelled during the sentencing hearing, and confirmed that - when asked by the reporter for clarification of the complainant's name -the OIC gave her real name.

6. The publication also provided an email from the police which said they were "not aware of any alias being used at court. Of course, the court itself can provide the definitive answer in terms of any formal restrictions."

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.

Findings of the Committee

7. The question for the Committee was whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information included in the article that she had appeared as a witness in a criminal trial.

8. The newspaper said that there was no formal reporting restriction which precluded naming the complainant as a witness and the complainant had not been able to demonstrate that the court had made such an order. Whilst it was not in dispute that during the trial the complainant had been referred to by the use of an alias, the reporter had been given the complainant’s real name by the Officer in the Case when making enquiries about the correct spelling of the complainant’s name. While the Committee was sympathetic to the complainant’s safety concerns, given the Officer in the Case had provided her real name to the reporter and there were no reporting restrictions in place which precluded identifying her as a witness at the trial, the Committee did not consider that the article disclosed private information about her by naming her as a witness. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

9. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

10. N/A

Date complaint received: 26/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/04/2025