06590-24 Wallace and Parsons v Telegraph.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Harriet Wallace and Robert Parsons complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Telegraph.co.uk breached Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

2. In October 2023, Robert Parsons had been involved in an incident during which two dogs he owned injured a child – he subsequently received a suspended prison sentence. On 11 November, the publication published an article covering his sentencing.

3. Following this, the complainants – Mr Parsons and his partner, Ms Wallace - complained about the conduct of a freelance reporter who had attended the court hearing in question. The complainants said that the reporter’s conduct was harassing in breach of Clause 3 – they said that he “repeatedly walked past” them in the court, and went on to walk “in on [them] having a private discussion in a room in front of a court that was completely closed for the day”. The complainants said that that they asked the reporter to leave, at which point he “continued to walk past to try and listen to [their] conversations”.

4. The publication denied a breach of Clause 3. It noted, firstly, that the reporter was a freelance reporter, who worked for an agency, as opposed to the publication itself. The publication said that the agency the reporter represented was well-respected, and routinely supplied information to national publications.

5. The publication also supplied a statement from the reporter, which disputed the complainants’ claims. The reporter said that a court usher had informed him that he could use an empty room outside of the courts – he therefore tried a number of rooms, which, he said, meant he had passed the complainants in the “landing” outside the court rooms.

6. Further, the reporter said that he had not entered a room the complainants were in, nor had been told to leave. He also disputed that he had tried to listen to their conversations. The reporter also commented that, on his arrival at the court and when speaking with court staff, Mr Parsons had in fact “made a point of coming over to tell [the reporter] which court room his hearing was in”.

7. In response, the complainants maintained that the reporter had harassed them. They said that when they had first interacted at the front desk of the court, the reporter had “approached the desk and shouted 'do you know what court room Robert Parsons is meant to be in'”, which they considered antagonising and provocative – at this point, they said, they had told the reporter the court room and time of Mr Parsons’ hearing.

8. Regarding the subsequent interaction, the complainants said that the reporter was aware of where their conversation was taking place, and walked past on numerous occasions – this included pushing the door open, and “walking in before quickly backtracking and walking back out”. They also said that they had to be accompanied when leaving the court, due to fear of the reporter being present.

9. The complainants also said that the reporter had been subject to a previous harassment complaint to IPSO – regarding a different publication, and which was not upheld – when he had attended a previous court hearing. They said that, given this, the agency should not have sent the reporter to attend Mr Parsons’ sentencing.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Findings of the Committee

10. It was not in dispute that the reporter was not acting on the publication’s behalf at the time of the interaction under complaint; rather, he worked for a third-party news agency. However, under the terms of Clause 3 (iii), the newspaper was still obliged to take care not to use material obtained in a manner which was not complaint with the terms of Clause 3.

11. The Committee recognised that both parties had been present in the courthouse. This was a public place, and it was not unlikely that the two would have crossed paths outside and around the court rooms – it did not follow, therefore, that a chance encounter between the reporter and the complainants would represent harassment. Indeed, by their own admission, the complainants had willingly interacted with the reporter at the front desk. The Committee also recognised that the reporter was entitled to be in this space – reporters commonly attend court hearings, and doing so did not constitute intimidating or harassing conduct, regardless of the complainants’ previous complaint against the reporter.

12. The Committee then turned to the complainants’ concerns that the reporter had entered a private room in which they were having a conversation, and had continued to walk past them, after being told to “go away”.

13. The reporter had denied that this had occurred. Regardless, the Committee considered that, from the complainants’ description of what had occurred, the reporter had immediately left the room when asked to do so; he had not remained in the area, pursued the complainants, or asked them questions against their wishes. This did not, in the Committee’s view, represent behaviour which could be described as intimidating or harassing.

14. Regarding the complainants’ concerns that the journalist had continued to walk past them following this interaction, the Committee recognised that the Code requires that journalists not ‘pursue’ individuals once asked to desist, and leave a property once asked. The Committee did not consider that the description of the reporter’s actions amounted to “pursuit” – rather, two parties were both present in the same public space, as they were entitled to be, and the reporter had not followed them there. The Committee also noted that the courthouse was not the complainant’s property – which they could reasonably ask the reporter to leave – and as noted above, the reporter had a right to be present.

15. For these reasons, the Committee did not consider that the newspaper had used material obtained in a manner non-compliant with the terms of Clause 3, and there was no breach of the Clause.

Conclusions

16. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 20/12/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/05/2025