Resolution Statement 18923-17 Dixon v The Sun

    • Date complaint received

      24th May 2018

    • Outcome

      Resolved - IPSO mediation

    • Code provisions

      1 Accuracy, 10 Clandestine devices and subterfuge, 2 Privacy, 3 Harassment, 4 Intrusion into grief or shock, 6 Children, 8 Hospitals

Resolution Statement Complaint 18923-17 Dixon v The Sun 

Summary of complaint 

1.    Eloise Dixon complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 6 (Children), and Clause 8 (Hospitals) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an headlined “Brit mum shot after bad turn into slum”, published on 8 August 2017; an article headlined “Slum gun getaway”, published on 9 August 2017; and an article headlined “Eloise gang raid”, published on 14 August 2017. 

2.    The articles reported that the complainant had been shot while on holiday with her family in Brazil. 

3.    The complainant said that she and her family had been harassed by reporters in Brazil. Their conduct and the newspaper’s coverage had intruded into her private life and that of her husband and children at a time of trauma and shock. 

4.    The complainant said that a reporter had waited outside the hospital where she was being treated and had videoed her and her family while she lay injured on a hospital bed, and a reporter had shouted questions at her husband. 

5.    The complainant said that one of the articles had inaccurately reported the circumstances of the shooting: her family had not entered the favela because they had misunderstood directions given to them while looking for water. In fact, the hire car’s sat nav had misdirected them. The articles had also wrongly reported that they had misunderstood orders given to them by the armed men: the men had not spoken to them at all. 

6.    The newspaper said that it was very sorry for any distress that it had caused the complainant and her family. 

7.    The newspaper said that a freelance reporter, who was working for the newspaper as well as an agency, had been present at the hospital; she had attended with a photographer and they had filmed the complainant and her family from a respectful distance with the permission of the hospital’s management. The reporter had asked one question of the complainant’s husband. He had not answered or made a request to desist; no further questions were asked. Two other approaches to the family were made via third parties, and no requests to desist were made at any time. 

8.    In response to the complainant’s concern about the accuracy of the coverage, the newspaper said that it had relied on information issued by the police, which had been accurately attributed to the police in the coverage. 

Relevant Code provisions 

9.    Clause 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. 

Clause 2 (*Privacy) 

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, 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. 

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. 

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. 

Clause 6 (*Children) 

i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion. 

ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the school authorities. 

iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents. 

Clause 8 (Hospitals)

i) Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals or similar institutions to pursue enquiries. 

ii) The restrictions on intruding into privacy are particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar institutions. 

Mediated outcome 

10. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter. 

11. During IPSO’s investigation of the complaint, the matter was settled between the parties. 

12. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.


Date complaint received: 09/10/2017

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 01/05/2018