06071-24 A woman v Sunday World

Summary of Complaint

1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Sunday World breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “UVF'S POPPY PURGE”, published on 3 November 2024.

2. The article reported on an alleged “purge” of gang members by UVF leadership. It said: “Last November it was announced the eight-man command structure in the east [of Belfast], including the alleged gang leader [the complainant’s son] had been stood down.” It then said the complainant’s son “had also stepped back and was described as ‘semi-retired’”.

3. It then reported that the complainant’s son was “currently awaiting trial in relation to an alleged UVF show of strength at Pitt Park in 2021”. It also reported on alleged links between the complainant’s son and a “convicted coke dealer” which was “seen as another challenge to the mainstream UVF.” The article went on to state that the complainant’s son “may have been planning to leave the country” but that “he ha[d] remained in Belfast because of his mother’s ill-health and his impending trial.”

4. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 2 because it disclosed private medical information about her: the fact she was in ill-health. She said she had not shared this information with anyone other than her children. She said, while she was not named in the article, it was clear the reference applied to her, given her son was named.

5. The publication did not accept the reference to the complainant’s health breached Clause 2. It said this was a passing reference and was not the focus of the article. It also said the information was “not expanded upon in any detail” and the article did not include a picture of the complainant. It said that – although it was aware of additional information about the complainant’s health – it had decided not to publish this further information in light of her rights under the Editors’ Code.

6. To demonstrate it had withheld information relating to the complainant’s health, the publication supplied a copy of an email from a reporter to the editors which said “my source told me [the complainant] is suffering from [redacted by publication]. He felt unable to leave the country out of concern for her care”.

7. Notwithstanding the fact the publication did not accept the information in the article breached the complainant’s privacy, it said any potential intrusion was justified, as required by the terms of Clause 2. It said the complainant’s son was the alleged leader of the UVF, and the complainant’s health was referenced in the context of her son’s activities and his role in the factional infighting. It said the article referred to the complainant son’s connection with a convicted drug dealer, and tensions arising from this. Considering this background, it argued it was relevant to speculate on why the complainant’s son remained in east Belfast, as the complainant’s health was a possible factor.

8. The publication also said the reference the complainant’s “ill health” was in the public interest. It said reporting on organised crime was clearly a matter of public interest, as was reporting on the tensions between the leadership of a proscribed paramilitary organisation and whether such tensions risked being inflamed by the continued presence of an alleged former leader. It said reporting on possible reasons for the complainant’s son’s continued presence in the area was also in the public interest.

9. Turning to the question of whether the public interest had been considered prior to the article’s publication, the newspaper said this had been discussed at a regular Friday editorial meeting, prior to the article’s publication the following Sunday. However, it said that - given the fast-paced nature of those meetings - there were no written notes of this discussion.

10. The complainant accepted that some details about her health appeared to have been withheld from publication. However she said the fact the publication did not reveal additional private information beyond what was featured in the article was not a defence to the breach of the Code.

11. The complainant also argued the publication was focused on the public interest in matters which were unconnected to her and her health. She said disclosing the fact she was suffering from illness was not in the public interest, and that the story could have been reported without this detail.

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

12. Clause 2 of the Code makes clear that individuals are entitled to respect for their health; the starting point as set out by the Code is that there is an inherent right to privacy over information relating to an individual’s health, and any intrusion into this right to a private life should be justified.

13. The Committee noted that the information published about the complainant’s health was limited – it did not contain details of the condition, its impact or her prognosis. Rather, the article simply said the complainant was in “ill health”. Additionally, the publication demonstrated that it had considered the impact the article may have on complainant’s privacy by withholding more specific information about her health from publication.

14. The Committee further noted the context in which the information under complaint appeared: the fact that the complainant was in “ill health” was disclosed in relation to speculation about the activities of her son and why he remained in east Belfast. The complainant’s son was a prominent public figure and had allegedly previously had a leading role in the UVF. His actions were relevant to the east Belfast community, who had a right to seek to understand his motivations in remaining in the city. Given the Code balances both the rights of the individual and the public’s right to know, and taking into account the limited extent of the intrusion, the publication found that the intrusion was justified. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 2.

15. Notwithstanding the fact that Clause 2 had not been breached, the Committee was also wished to note it considered the publication of the information under complaint served the public interest. The information was connected to speculation about a figure allegedly connected to organised crime, and the specific risks of and reasons for his presence in east Belfast. Further, the information was limited to a non-specific reference, given the details of the complainant’s condition were not expanded upon. The publication said that the public interest in the information’s publication had been discussed in-person in the weekly editorial meetings. Considering the limited extent of the reference to the complainant’s health, the Committee accepted this in-person discussion was sufficient to demonstrate the publication had considered whether the information served the public interest prior to publication.

Conclusions

16. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

17. N/A

Date complaint received: 05/11/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 26/03/2025