06081-25 Turtle v The Belfast Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Lyndsay Turtle complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Belfast Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief and shock) and Clause 5 (Reporting suicide) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Teenager died from insulin overdose 'in attempt to get former partner's attention'”, published on 15 November 2025.

2. The article, which appeared on page 8, reported on the inquest of a woman who had “died from an insulin overdose days after the breakdown of a relationship”. It reported that the complainant, the woman’s mother, had “stated that her daughter became ‘obsessed’ with [her ex-partner] and was going to ‘significant efforts to get his attention’”.

3. The article also reported the date of the woman’s death in hospital and that this was “days after she was found unresponsive” in her home. It also reported the cause of death as given by the coroner, including that “she deliberately and voluntarily administered the insulin overdose that resulted in her death however, in doing so, I do not find that she intended to take her own life.” It also included the graveyard where the woman was buried and a photograph of the woman.

4. The article also appeared online under the headline “NI teen died from insulin overdose ‘in attempt to get ex-partner’s attention’ after relationship breakdown, inquest finds”.

5. The complainant initially complained directly to the publication on 19 November, and exchanged further mails with the newspaper, expanding on her complaint, over the following days.

6. The publication apologised for any upset caused to the complainant by its coverage, but said that it was entitled to report on inquests. However, on 20 November, it removed the photograph of the complainant’s daughter from the online article as a gesture of goodwill. The complainant then complained to IPSO, and her complaint was passed to the publication on 11 December.

7. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 1. She said that it was inaccurate to report that she had said her daughter “was going to ‘significant efforts to get [her ex-partner’s] attention’”. The complainant said this had been stated by the coroner, not her. To support her position, she provided a copy of the coroner’s report, which attributed the wording to the coroner.

8. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to report that her daughter had died “days” after she was found unresponsive, as she died two weeks later.

9. The complainant also considered that the article intruded into her privacy and her grief and shock in breach of Clause 2 and Clause 4. She said it included insensitive and private information regarding her daughter’s death and inquest.

10. The complainant further said that Clause 2 had been breached as the article featured a photograph of her daughter. The complainant believed this had been taken from her social media page, and had been published without consent. She also considered it a breach of privacy to report where her daughter had been buried, as she did not wish for this to be public knowledge.

11. The complainant also considered reporting the method of her daughter’s death – namely, the use of insulin - may lead to simulative acts, in particular amongst younger people. She said this represented a breach of Clause 5.

12. The publication did not accept that there had been a breach of the Code. It said that the press regularly covered inquests as part of reporting on court hearings and that they are an important part of the administration of justice.

13. The publication noted the coroner’s report stated: "I accept the evidence of Ms Lyndsay Turtle that the deceased was obsessed with [the ex-partner], and I find that she was going to significant efforts to try and get his attention". It said that, given the complainant had described her daughter as “obsessed” in her statement, it was in keeping with the summary of her evidence and not significantly inaccurate for the article to attribute the phrasing to the complainant. It did, however, amend the article on 22 December, one month after being made aware of the alleged inaccuracy, to report: “Lyndsay stated that her daughter became ‘obsessed’ with William. The coroner concluded that she was going to ‘significant efforts to get his attention’.” It also added the following as a footnote to the article:

“This article was amended on December 22 2025, correcting a reference to a quote about the deceased going to ‘significant efforts to get his attention’. This was made by the coroner, not Ms Lyndsay Turtle, as originally reported.”

14. The publication did not consider that it was inaccurate to describe two weeks as “days”, and therefore to report that the complainant’s daughter died “days” after she was found unresponsive.

15. The publication said that inquests are open for the public, and that publishing details about them did not breach of Clause 2. The publication said that, whilst it understood that the article was difficult for the complainant to read, it had been written sensitively and it did not believe it breached Clause 4 of the Code.

16. With regard to the remainder of the information the complainant considered to be private, it said that both the photograph and burial location had been taken from the Funeral Times: a long-established public repository for death notices in Northern Ireland. It said that the information taken from the Funeral Times was in the public domain, and had been uploaded by the family. The publication also said the image had been used on social media to promote a fundraiser in the complainant’s daughter’s memory. It added that, whilst it did not consider the image to be private, it had already removed it from the online version of the article as a gesture of goodwill.

17. The publication said that coroner had expressly ruled out the complainant’s daughter’s intention to take her own life in the report, and on this basis it did not consider that Clause 5 was engaged. It said that, in any case, the high-level reference to insulin, without further detail on the method of ingestion or quantity, did not run the risk of copycat actions.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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.

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.

4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

5 (Reporting suicide)*

When reporting suicide, to prevent simulative acts care should be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method used, while taking into account the media's right to report legal proceedings.

Findings of the Committee

18. The Committee first wished to express its condolences to the complainant for her loss.

19. It was not in dispute that the complainant had not said her daughter had gone to “significant efforts to get [her ex-partner’s] attention”. Rather, it was the coroner who had used this phrasing. Inaccurately reporting what had been said by a witness in an inquest amounted to a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1 (i). Given the importance of the principle of open justice, which is of particular importance in cases involving an individual’s a death, misrepresenting what had been said by a grieving mother in relation to the death of their child was a significant inaccuracy and required correction under Clause 1 (ii).

20. The complainant had first contacted the publication on this matter on 21 November. The publication amended the article and added a footnote noting the amendment over a month later. The Committee did not consider this to be a duly prompt correction as required by Clause 1 (ii), and there was a breach of this sub-Clause.

21. With regard to reporting the complainant’s daughter had died “days” after being found unresponsive, the Committee did not consider it inaccurate to describe a period of fourteen days in this manner. The article made clear that there was a stretch of time between finding the complainant’s daughter and her death, and not specifying the exact number of days did not render the article inaccurate. There was no breach on this point.

22. The Committee was clear that inquests are public, and information about the complainant’s daughter’s death and inquest, whilst upsetting for the complainant to read, had already been made public. Additionally, the image in the article and the place of burial had been made public on Funeral Times and was therefore in the public domain prior to the article’s publication. There was no breach of Clause 2.

23. Whilst the Committee appreciated that the article had been upsetting for the complainant to read, it did not consider that publication had not been handled sensitively. The article was a straightforward report of the inquest, and did not seek to sensationalise or mock the complainant’s daughter’s death. There was no breach of Clause 4.

24. With regard to the alleged breach of Clause 5, the Committee did not consider that the article included a level of detail that might encourage or assist another person to take their own life in the same way. It simply reported on the method in which the complainant’s daughter had died, and had not provided a level of detail which would indicate to readers how they could engage in simulative acts – such as the specific dosage. There was no breach of Clause 5.

Conclusions

25. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

26. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

27. The Committee considered that attributing the words of the coroner to the complainant was significantly inaccurate, particularly given the context of the article. However, it noted that the publication had amended the inaccuracy, and published a correction, albeit a month after being first being made aware. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy.

28. The Committee was satisfied that the wording of the correction already published set out the inaccuracy and put on record the correct position. It also considered that it appeared in a sufficiently prominent position – as a footnote to an amended online article. In light of this, the Committee required that the existing correction should be amended to make clear there had been an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 25/11/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/04/2026