06547-24 Smith v Daily Mirror Northern Ireland

Summary of Complaint

1. Connor Smith complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mirror Northern Ireland breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Driver, 20, dies days after crash that killed teen cousin”, published on 28 August 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page 17 - reported on the death of two cousins, one of whom was the complainant’s son, following a car crash. The article was accompanied by a photograph of the car in question which showed its location and damage after the collision, and showed a forensic officer inspecting the car. The photograph appeared in the bottom quarter of the article, and was spread across two columns of text. The article included a quote from a Garda spokesperson who said, “Gardai continue to appeal for any witnesses to this collision to come forward.”

3. The article also appeared online under the headline “'Two beautiful cousins' killed in Donegal collision did everything together say 'devastated' family”; this version of the article was published on 27 August 2024 and did not include the photograph of the car.

4. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock). He initially complained directly to the newspaper – he said publishing the photograph of the car was insensitive given the crash had led to the death of his son and his cousin. He requested an apology.

5. The publication defended its use of the photograph – it said it had a responsibility to inform the public and to provide details of the circumstances of such incidents, such as photographs of the scene. It did not consider there was anything “untoward” about the photograph, and said that the damage shown in the photograph may had provided some indication of the force of the collision. It said it was appropriate, and not insensitive to publish.

6. On 16 December, the complainant complained to IPSO. He said his son had been in a fatal car accident on 24 August 2024 and had died on 27 August as a result of his injuries. The complainant said he was horrified by the photograph of the car, which had been published the day after his son’s death – he considered its publication to be unnecessary, intrusive and insensitive to his son’s memory, as well as to the family. He said the photograph left nothing to the imagination and that you could clearly see the “R” plate in the windscreen – a small sign which indicated the driver had passed their driving test within a year – which showed the level of detail which was visible to readers of the article. He said that the front of the car was where the cousins lost their lives.

7. The complainant said that the fact the photograph showed the forensic officer was still at the scene suggested it was taken very shortly after the crash. He also said that, in order to take the photograph, the photographer would have had to climb into a field to get the shot. He said this was “disgusting” and intrusive, and that there were other shots of the car that could have been taken that were less intrusive.

8. The publication said the photograph of the car had not been published until the immediate families had been made aware of the incident, and said it had ensured that the photograph did not include any detail that would be considered sensitive or private. It said the photograph was taken in an open, public space the day after the incident but, at any rate, it did not consider the date of when the image had been taken to be relevant to Clause 4. It said this was the case as the intrusion into the complainant’s grief or shock could only be considered to the article including the photograph after it had been published – and this was four days after the incident.

9. The publication also said it considered that it was important to include the photograph given - as reported in the article -the "Gardai continue[d] to appeal for any witnesses to this collision to come forward."

10. The complainant said he did not accept that the newspaper published the photograph as a matter of road safety to its readers. He said it used the photograph to shock and sell newspapers without regard for the long-lasting shock it would have on the family.

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

11. The Committee wished to offer its condolences to the complainant for the loss of his son and was sorry to hear of the further distress the article had caused.

12. The Committee acknowledged that the publication of a photograph showing the aftermath of a car collision which led to the complainant’s son’s death would be very upsetting. However, the question for the Committee was not whether the image in question was upsetting but whether publication was insensitive. It noted that while the image showed the impact and location of the collision, as well as the damage to the car, it did not show any details beyond this. It also noted that the image was relatively small and - as it showed the entirety of the car - it was not possible to see the two front seats in detail, which was where the complainant’s son had been driving. The Committee also noted that the article had appealed for witnesses and that publishing this image would assist readers in identifying the car, and the approximate location of the incident.

13. The Committee also considered the complainant’s concern that the photograph had been taken very shortly after the incident as a forensic officer was pictured at the scene. The complainant said that the only way to obtain the photograph was by climbing into a field which he believed was intrusive. In this instance, the Committee, appreciated that this took place a day after the crash, however the car was visible from a field, and photographing the car at this stage did not involve the newspaper contacting the complainant at an inappropriate time - for example before the immediate family had been informed of the death. On balance, the Committee considered that publication was handled sensitively and for this reason, there was no breach of Clause 4.

Conclusions

14. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

15. N/A

Date complaint received: 16/12/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/04/2025