06347-24 Greenaway v Kentish Express

Summary of Complaint

1. Rosemary Greenaway complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Kentish Express breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “'Luke had the biggest heart'”, and in a podcast called “Tributes paid to dad-of-six Luke Greenaway, 33, following death at Ashford Rugby Club” – both of which were published on 7 November 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on the front page and continued on page 5 – reported on the death of the complainant’s son. It began, “a dad-of-six who had the ‘biggest heart and would help anyone’ tragically took his own life, a coroner has ruled.” The article reported the complainant “had paid an emotional tribute” to her son following the inquest into his death.

3. The tribute, included in the article, read as follows:

“’He is a son, a brother, a dad­ of-six, a grandad, an uncle, a nephew, a stepdad to three stepdaughters, and a best friend. He had the biggest heart and would help anyone. He was funny and loud. He couldn't sit still like an electric spark and was protective of those he cared about. He loved motorbikes, which were his passion, and he would say they helped clear his head but not everyone saw his bikes as a good thing. Luke had many problems throughout his life including relationships, grief, physical health, financial problems and addiction, which all played a part in him taking his own life. All he wanted was to beloved [sic] and be part of a family. Luke will always be loved by those that matter, including his family, children and closest friends. He will never be forgotten.’”

4. The print article also contained an image of the complainant’s son.

5. The article also appeared online in a substantially similar form under multiple headlines – as the article updated after its publication. There were: “Man's body found at rugby club”; “Man’s body found at Ashford Rugby Club in Kennington”; “Dad-of-six had ‘biggest heart and would help anyone’”; “Family of dad-of-six Luke Greenaway, 33, say he had ‘biggest heart and would help anyone’ after Ashford Rugby Club death”.

6. The online article also contained an image of the rugby club.

7. The podcast under complaint began:

“Hello - hope you're ok on Thursday November 7th. Thanks ever so much for downloading today's podcast. And this is our top story today. A coroner has ruled that a father of six tragically took his own life after being found dead at Ashford rugby club earlier this year.”

8. The podcast – which was a conversation between two reporters – then went on to report details of the complainant’s son’s death. It also included the complainant’s tribute and an additional tribute from the rugby club chairman.

9. Prior to the publication of the articles and the podcast, the complainant contacted the publication by email. In the email the complainant referenced a prior conversation over the phone about an article the newspaper was at planning to publish about her son’s death. The complainant asked whether she would be able to see and approve the story before it was published, and inquired as to how much information from the inquest the newspaper was planning on using.

10. The newspaper responded:

“Thank you for getting in touch. We can’t give you prior approval I’m afraid. I am not going to go into detail about how your son died. […] However, you’re more than welcome to send us a tribute about Luke, the kind of man he was and how the family is feeling following his death. If you wanted to choose some pictures, you’re more than welcome to do that. Let me know what you think.”

11. The complainant responded by expressing her concern that she was not able to approve the story, as well as her general confusion as to why the story was being covered at all. She also said she was concerned about the way the article would depict her son and that this would lead to the public comments and judgement.

12. The newspaper responded:

“After speaking with my editors, we are happy to show you the story before it goes to press but we can't offer copy approval. My offer for the family to contribute to a tribute piece is still there. This would mean the article focuses more on the tributes than the inquest details and helps paint a true picture of the person Luke was. Do you wish to contribute to this? I would need this by Tuesday night as the paper goes to press on Wednesday. Details about why we cover inquests can be found by clicking [link to webpage].”

13. The complainant responded with the tribute to her son which was included in the article – after some further messages were exchanged, she also sent some images of her son.

14. The publication responded:

“Many thanks for sending those tribute lines and photos across. As [named reporter] said, we can't offer copy approval but are happy to show you the story before it goes to press this week. The story is below. [Text of the story].”

15. The complainant responded saying the proposed article was “fine”. She also requested one detail was added and another was removed.

16. The newspaper responded:

“I've added that extra detail about who the last message was sent to and have removed the line about [another detail].”

17. The complainant thanked the reporter.

18. After the article was published, the complainant contacted the newspaper again. The complainant said she had read the article and what she had written in her tribute had been changed. The complainant then sent an additional email saying she had just listened to the podcast about her son and expressing her distress at it being published without her permission.

19. The publication responded:

“As said on the phone, we took the podcast out of the story as soon as you flagged it, and it would never be our intention to add to the distress of grieving friends and relatives. If we're running a story on KentOnline, there is every chance it could appear on the front page too, which was what happened in this case as you had given such nice tributes.”

20. The complainant wrote back to this expressing her upset that the podcast had been published with neither her permission nor a warning, and that she had also not been warned that the story would be so prominent in the paper. She said her family had found this highly upsetting. The complainant also expressed concern about an interaction between her and her family and a reporter at a rugby club. She said the reporter had been “snide” during the interaction.

21. The newspaper said:

“I'm afraid all I can do is apologise again for any distress caused, as it was not intended, and wish you and your family the very best.”

22. The complainant responded by stating her continued displeasure, and noting the podcast had not been removed. The complainant said the reporter had not responded to her concerns about the reporter.

23. The newspaper responded:

“I've just deleted that link.”

24. The complainant responded by asking for the contact details of the manager of the person she was corresponding with from the publication.

25. On 26 November, the complainant complained to IPSO.

26. The complainant said behaviour of a reporter at the rugby club where her son had died had breached Clause 4. The complainant alleged that, on 10 June, a reporter had visited the rugby club while the family were having a gathering to remember her son. The complainant said the reporter had wanted to take photos of the club, and particularly the area where her son’s body had been found. The complainant said her family were upset by the presence of the reporter so had requested she leave and not take photos. The complainant alleged the reporter did not leave immediately when she was asked. The complainant believed that as the reporter left, she took a photograph of the rugby club which focused on the scaffolded area where her son had died, and that this was the photo used in the article. She said this was extremely upsetting for the family, and she felt that this was highly insensitive their grief and shock.

27. The complainant also alleged Clause 4 had been breached because she said felt pressured by the publication into providing comments for the article, because she had been told the publication would publish an article about the inquest whether the family commented or not.

28. The complainant also said Clause 4 had been breached because she considered the prominence of the coverage of her son’s death – it was the lead story on the podcast, and featured on the front page of the print edition of the newspaper – to be insensitive. The complainant also said she had requested the publication remove the section of podcast about her son’s death, and the publication had agreed to this, but had not done so. The complainant also said she was not warned the death would be covered in the podcast.

29. The complainant alleged that, during a phone call, when she asked for an apology, the reporter who she was speaking to laughed and said “well you’re not going to get that” – she said this interaction had been upsetting and insensitive in a manner which breached Clause 4.

30. The publication denied the behaviour of the reporter at the rugby club breached Clause 4. It said its reporter was not initially aware there were family members on the scene when she arrived at the rugby club, and when the family expressed concerns about her presence and asked her to leave, she did so without question. It said a short while later the reporter took a general view photograph of the rugby club from a distance, on a footpath outside the grounds, from where neither the floral tributes nor anyone at the scene was visible.

31. The publication did not accept it had pressured the complainant into commenting on the article. It said, following the inquest into the complainant’s son’s death, its reporter spoke to the family, who raised concerns about potential coverage of the hearing. It said its reporter explained why the press reports on inquests and asked the family if they wished to contribute any tributes. It said this was not uncommon, because it found families appreciate stories about the deaths of loved ones being framed as tributes rather than straight inquest reports. It said its reporter passed on his contact details and told the family to take the weekend to think about whether they would like to add anything to the inquest report, the complainant was sent the wording of the story prior to publication. It said it had made the two amendments requested by the complaint and noted the main headline in the print article focused on the tribute lines provided by the family.

32. Regarding the prominence of the coverage of the death, the newspaper said it was not common practice to give advance notice of where a story would be placed, and it did not consider concerns about the prominence of articles engaged the Code. Additionally, the publication did not accept it had breached Clause 4 by not warning the complainant that a podcast would be published on her son’s death. It said it was not customary for people to be given advance notice or approval of a story’s inclusion in a podcast. The publication said it had removed the podcast when the complainant requested it do so, but it did not realise a video version of the podcast had remained online – it said it took this down this upon receipt of the IPSO complaint. Notwithstanding this, the publication said it was not obliged to remove the podcast, and this matter did not engage the Code.

33. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 4 regarding the way the reporter spoke to the complainant over the phone. It disputed the complainant’s version of events and said the person who had spoken to the complainant had not act in the manner described by the complainant. It said the news editor who took the call said the complainant wanted the newspaper to publish a formal written apology for including the story in the podcast. It said that, because it did not consider it had acted improperly, and because efforts had been made to address the complainant’s concerns, the reporter had explained the newspaper would not be apologising and why. The publication’s representative said he had never been given cause to believe the reporter who spoke to the complainant would act with anything but the utmost sensitivity in such circumstances. It noted that in previous email correspondence, the same news editor had apologised to the complainant for any distress the story had caused her and wished her and her family the very best.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 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.

Findings of the Committee

34. The Committee firstly wished to extend its sympathies to the complainant and her family for the distressing circumstances surrounding this complaint.

35. The Committee recognised coverage of the death of a loved one can be distressing. However, the press has a right to report on the fact that someone has died, even if friends and family of the person who has died are unhappy with this. While there is a requirement that publication is handled with sensitivity and discretion, there is no obligation for newspapers to ask for permission from a person’s family to cover the death, nor to seek their input in the coverage. In its consideration of this case, the Committee had regard for the fact the publication went further in its efforts to reflect the family’s wishes in its coverage than it was obliged to under the Code.

36. Where the publication and the complainant had conflicting accounts of events, it was not possible to establish exactly what happened between the reporter and the family during the interaction at the rugby club. The Committee made a finding on the agreed facts of the matter, which were as follows: a reporter had attended the site of the complainant’s son’s death, she had left shortly – if not immediately – after being asked to do so by the family, and she had subsequently taken a photo of the scaffolded area where the complainant’s son had died.

37. The Committee recognised the family were upset by the interaction and the presence of the journalist at the rugby club. However, journalists are not prohibited from attending the sites of incidents where distressing events are taken place, and - in leaving when the family asked - the Committee were satisfied that the reporter had acted with sympathy and discretion, notwithstanding that an approach had not been purposefully made to the family.

38. Under the Code, the reporter was also not prohibited from photographing the site. The Committee did not consider photographing the site, which was visible from the footpath, amounted to intrusion under Clause 4. Additionally, the image itself simply showed the outside of the club – it did not reveal anything about the complainant and her family, her son, or the manner of his death. In these circumstances, the Committee did not find the photo itself nor the manner in which it was taken to represent a breach of Clause 4.

39. The Committee considered the complainant’s concerns about the prominence of coverage of her son’s death, including in the podcast. The placement and prominence of material is generally a matter of editorial discretion and was not something which engages the Code. There is also no requirement to contact individuals in advance of coverage which does may affect them, nor to delete material when people ask for it to be removed. There was no breach of the Code on these points.

40. The complainant had also expressed concern that she had felt pressured into providing a tribute, and that this breached the terms of Clause 4. The Committee carefully considered the correspondence between the newspaper and the complainant, and noted that – while the newspaper had explained to the complainant that it would be covering the inquest regardless of whether it had received a comment – it had not intimidated, threatened, or coerced the complainant into providing her tribute. Rather, at all times, it was explained to the complainant that decision whether or not to provide a photograph and a tribute was her choice – for example, the complainant was told that she was “more than welcome to send us a tribute about [her son], the kind of man he was and how the family is feeling following his death” and was asked if she “wished” to contribute to the article. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that this element of complaint represented a breach of Clause 4.

41. The complainant alleged the newspaper had spoken to her rudely and laughed at her when she asked for an apology. Based on the correspondence the Committee reviewed when reaching its decision – which was respectful, polite, and apologetic at the distress caused by the article and the conflicting accounts given by both parties, there was no basis to find that the complainant had been spoken to in way that did not accord with the terms of Clause 4 during the phone call.

42. While the newspaper denied the complainant was spoken to in a rude manner or laughed at, it did not dispute it had told the complainant it would not be apologising to her for its conduct. While the Committee cannot force publications to apologise, there are some circumstances in which a lack of apology can be an aggravating factor when the Code has been breached. However, in this instance, the Committee did not consider that not apologising to the complainant represented a lack of sympathy or discretion, given the coverage and conduct of the publication did not breach Clause 4, and – from the correspondence provided to the IPSO by the complainant and publication – it was clear that, during its written interactions with the complainant, the publication had acted with sympathy and discretion. There was no breach of Clause 4.

Conclusions

43. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 26/11/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/04/2025