Date and newspaper- The Daily Mirror
Date complaint received: 23/11/2015
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/12/2015
Case brought by- Dr Bernard Freudenthal
Details of the case- Dr Bernard Freudenthal complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Betrayal of our babies”, published on 25 November 2015.
The article reported that a study had found that babies born at the weekend are more likely to be stillborn or die shortly after birth than those delivered on weekdays. It reported that “770 babies delivered each year in NHS hospitals on a Saturday or Sunday are either stillborn or die within seven days”, and that this was “7.3% more than during the week”.
The complainant said that it was inaccurate for the article to suggest that a report had found babies born at the weekend were more likely to die than those born during the rest of the week; the study in question had not compared weekend death rates with weekday death rates. Instead, it had compared the death rate of babies born on Tuesdays with that of babies born on other days. The study found that, per year, there were 770 more deaths than what would be expected if the death rate were constant throughout the week, and was the same as on Tuesdays.
The newspaper said that prior to publication during the editorial process, some confusion had arisen over the figures cited. It offered to publish a clarification in print and online over the figures reported. The complainant did not consider that the offer was sufficient.
Clauses alleged to have been contravened- Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Adjudicated by- IPSO
Outcome- it offered to publish the following correction online:
We originally reported that Dr Palmer's study revealed that 770 babies delivered each year in NHS hospitals at the weekend are either stillborn or die within seven days - 7.3% more than during the week. The article has been amended to make clear that in fact the study's findings suggest that “770 more perinatal deaths per year … occurred above what [would be expected] if mortality was always the same as for babies delivered on a Tuesday”.
The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
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 and newspaper- The Daily Mirror
Date complaint received: 14/11/2014
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/03/2015
Case brought by- Thomas Chipperfield
Details of the case- Thomas Chipperfield complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Mirror had published an article, headlined “Prodded with sticks and caged in misery…the lions and tigers at ‘circus high school’”, on 7 November 2014, which raised a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The article was accompanied by a photograph which depicted the complainant holding a stick to a lion. The complainant was concerned that the photograph, when seen in conjunction with the phrase “prodded with sticks” in the headline, was misleading; he denied that there had been “prodding”, and said that in the photograph in question he had been feeding the lion. He said that the implication that big cats were being mistreated was inaccurate; he had passed inspections with Aberdeenshire Council and DEFRA, both of whom had been content with the manner in which he worked with his animals. The article reported that “no-one from the [‘circus high school’] could be contacted for comment last night”. He denied that a reasonable attempt for comment had been made, and said that his spokesman had contacted an individual at the newspaper’s publishing group to provide a statement, photographs and videos which made clear that no “prodding” was taking place. The complainant was also concerned that the photograph which accompanied the article was taken during “undercover investigations”.
The newspaper defended its use of the word “prodding”; whilst it accepted that the animal was not being prodded in the image in question, it referred to a video in the public domain, which showed the complainant prodding a lion with sticks to control the animal, albeit not, it accepted, in an aggressive manner. The newspaper said it had tried to contact the complainant by email, and had left three or four messages on his mobile phone. It said that the comments of the complainant’s representative were included in the article the next day. The newspaper offered to publish a clarification which would say that it had published a photograph of what it said was the complainant prodding the lion, when in fact he was using a stick to feed the lion.
Clauses alleged to have been contravened- . Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence.
Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.
Adjudicated by- IPSO
Outcome- Mediated outcome
The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore instigated an investigation into the matter.
The newspaper amended the online article to remove the reference to the prodding and poking of the lion. It re-iterated its earlier offer to publish a correction on page 2 of the newspaper. The offered correction was as follows:
“Thomas Chipperfield
In our edition of November 7 we published a picture of what we said was Thomas Chipperfield prodding a lion. In fact he was using his stick to feed it.”
The complainant said that the newspaper’s offer would resolve the matter to his satisfaction. The clarification was published on 25 March 2015.
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 and newspaper- The Times
Date complaint received: 25/11/2015
Date decision issued: 17/02/2016
Case brought by- Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND)
Details of the case- Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “One in five British Muslims has sympathy for Isis”, published in print and online on 24 November 2015.
The article reported that, according to an opinion poll conducted by The Sun newspaper, one in five Muslims “has sympathy for fighters who choose to leave Britain to wage war in Syria”. It included comments from a number of prominent Muslim individuals, criticising the so-called Islamic State (IS). It also noted that some had questioned the reliability of the poll, with critics saying that it did not distinguish between “those who have gone out to fight for Islamic State and the multitude of other factions, including the Shia militants and Kurds fighting in Syria”. The article included an image of the poll question, taken from The Sun.
The article was also published in the same form online, without the image of the poll question.
The complainant said that the headline was inaccurate: the survey question reported had not made explicit reference to IS, and those surveyed could have believed it to refer to individuals fighting in Syria for other groups. The article had later referred to this point. It was inaccurate to report that 1 in 5 British Muslims had sympathy for the ideals of IS.
The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It noted that the presence of British Muslims among IS fighters had been widely reported, with the estimated number ranging from 700 to 2000. In contrast, only a handful of cases in which British Muslims had joined other groups had been reported. The newspaper did not consider, therefore, that survey respondents would have been in any doubt as to which fighters the question referred to. Furthermore, the questions preceding that reported had made explicit reference to IS. The context of the question was therefore clear.
The newspaper noted that the question of whether there was a meaningful distinction between sympathy for those who fight for IS and sympathy for the ideals of IS was a matter of opinion. To clarify its headline, and following earlier complaints, it published the following clarification on 26 November, in its corrections and clarifications column on its letters page, on page 36:
We reported the findings of a Survation poll of 1000 British Muslims (News 24 Nov). Asked “How do you feel about young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria?”, 14% of respondents expressed “some sympathy” and 5 per cent “a lot of sympathy”. The survey did not distinguish between those who go to fight for Islamic State and those who join other factions in Syria, and it did not ask about attitudes towards Isis itself. Our headline, “One in five British Muslims has sympathy for Isis,” was misleading in failing to reflect this.
This was also added to the online article, and the online headline was amended to “One in five British Muslims has sympathy for young Muslims who join fighters in Syria”.
The complainant did not consider that the correction had been published promptly, or with sufficient prominence
Clauses alleged to have been contravened- Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence.
Adjudicated by- IPSO
Outcome- The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
The newspaper had promptly published a sufficiently prominent clarification, which corrected the inaccurate impression given by the headline, and had amended the online article and appended a clarification to it. No further action was required.
The text of the article had made clear that the question had referred to “fighters who choose to leave Britain to wage war in Syria”. It had not failed to distinguish between individuals and ideals, and the text of the article did not raise a further breach of the Code.
Date and newspaper- The Times
Date complaint received: 05/11/2014
Date decision issued: 26/03/2015
Case brought by- Clémentine Bobin
Details of the case- Clémentine Bobin complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times had breached Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Banker left glamour model for new life”, published on 5 November 2014.
The article contrasted the student days in England of Rurik Jutting with the circumstances of his recent arrest for murder in Hong Kong. It was accompanied by three photographs, the largest of which depicted Mr Jutting standing next to the complainant with his arm around her, captioned as “Rurik Jutting as a Cambridge student at 21, with a friend”. The other photographs showed one of his alleged victims and a former girlfriend.
The complainant said that the photograph had been taken in 2006, when she was a young co-worker of Mr Jutting, after which period she had had no contact with him. Although it had not named her, it had clearly identified her to friends, family and colleagues, which was intrusive and upsetting. In addition, she was concerned that its relative prominence and size suggested that she was the glamour model mentioned in the headline.
The complainant argued that the photograph had been taken in circumstances where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, at a private event in the enclosed grounds of a college. While it appeared to have been taken from a publicly-accessible Facebook page, she had never consented to its circulation; the page belonged to a friend, who had been unaware that no privacy settings protected it. This did not mean it was in the “public domain”.
The newspaper argued that in light of the allegations against Mr Jutting, there was a public interest in examining his life; the photograph served to illustrate the apparent transformation of his circumstances. The caption referred to the complainant’s past connection to Mr Jutting, but she did not remain his “friend”, and Clause 9 should therefore not apply. In its view, those who would recognise the complainant would be aware that she had had no continued association with the accused.
It did not dispute the complainant’s account of the circumstances in which the photograph was taken. In its view, however, the individuals pictured had a limited expectation of privacy, and the content of the photograph was innocuous. Given this, and the fact that the Facebook album from which it had been obtained was publicly accessible, the newspaper did not accept any breach of Clause 3.
The newspaper removed the photograph from its website as soon as it was aware of the complainant’s concerns, and apologised for having distressed her. It later removed the photograph from its editorial systems as well, and confirmed that there were no circumstances in which it imagined republishing it.
Clauses alleged to have been contravened- Clause 3 (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. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.
Claude 9 (Reporting of crime)
i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.
The Public interest
i) The Regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so.
Adjudicated by- IPSO
Outcome- Regardless of the true nature of their connection, the caption to the large and prominent photograph described the complainant as a “friend” of Mr Jutting. While the article, taken as a whole, made clear that the complainant was not the “glamour model” cited in the headline, it nevertheless asserted a direct association between the complainant and Mr Jutting, in a manner that squarely engaged the terms of Clause 9.
In order to avoid a breach of the Code, the newspaper was therefore required to show it was justified in identifying the complainant, either because the complainant was genuinely relevant to the story, or because – regardless of her relevance – there was a public interest which justified publication.
The article had made no reference to the complainant, and she was plainly not personally relevant to the story. No public interest could reasonably be regarded as justifying the intrusion into the complainant’s life caused by so prominently and publicly associating her with an alleged criminal. The Committee upheld the complaint under Clause 9.
The Committee did not separately uphold the complaint under Clause 3 (Privacy). Although the Committee noted the complainant’s concern that the photograph had been taken without consent from a Facebook page, it conveyed only the fact of the complainant’s association with Mr Jutting around 8 years ago, when they were at university. This was not in itself private, and it raised no additional issues for the Committee to consider beyond those which gave rise to the breach of Clause 9.
Conclusions
The complaint was upheld in part.
Remedial Action Required
Having upheld the complaint under Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Code, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. The Committee has the power to require the publication of a correction and/or adjudication, the nature, extent and placement of which is to be determined by IPSO. It may also inform the publication that further remedial action is required to ensure that the requirements of the Code are met.
The Committee required that in order to remedy the breach of the Editors’ Code, the newspaper should publish the Committee’s adjudication upholding the complaint. The article under complaint had been published on page 9 of the newspaper; the adjudication should also be published on this page or further forward, with a headline to be agreed in advance.
The terms of the adjudication, which the newspaper should publish without addition or alteration, are as follows:
Clémentine Bobin complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times had breached Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Banker left glamour model for new life”, published on 5 November 2014. IPSO upheld the complaint as a breach of the Editors’ Code and required The Times to publish this decision by its Complaints Committee as a remedy to the breach.
The article contrasted the student days in England of Rurik Jutting with the circumstances of his recent arrest for murder in Hong Kong. It was accompanied by three photographs, the largest of which depicted Mr Jutting standing next to the complainant with his arm around her, captioned as “Rurik Jutting as a Cambridge student at 21, with a friend”. The other photographs showed one of his alleged victims and a former girlfriend.
The complainant said that the photograph had been taken in 2006, when she was a young co-worker of Mr Jutting, after which period she had had no contact with him. Although it had not named her, it had clearly identified her to friends, family and colleagues, which was intrusive and upsetting.
The newspaper argued that in light of the allegations against Mr Jutting, there was a public interest in examining his life; the photograph served to illustrate the apparent transformation of his circumstances. The caption referred to the complainant’s past connection to Mr Jutting, but she did not remain his “friend”, and Clause 9 should therefore not apply. In its view, those who would recognise the complainant would be aware that she had had no continued association with the accused.
The newspaper removed the photograph from its website as soon as it was aware of the complainant’s concerns, and apologised for having distressed her. It later removed the photograph from its editorial systems as well, and confirmed that there were no circumstances in which it imagined republishing it.
Regardless of the true nature of their connection, the caption to the large and prominent photograph described the complainant as a “friend” of Mr Jutting; this asserted a direct association between the two, in a manner that squarely engaged the terms of Clause 9.
In order to avoid a breach of the Code, the newspaper was therefore required to show that it was justified in identifying the complainant, either because the complainant was genuinely relevant to the story, or because – regardless of the complainant’s relevance – there was a public interest which justified publication.
The article had made no reference to the complainant, and she was plainly not personally relevant to the story. No public interest could reasonably be regarded as justifying the intrusion into the complainant’s life caused by so prominently and publicly associating her with an alleged criminal. The Committee upheld the complaint.
Date and newspaper- Oldham Evening Chronicle
14/04/2014
Case brought by- Mr Chris Shyne
Details of the case- Mr Chris Shyne complained to the Press Complaints Commission about an article which he considered to have been inaccurate and intrusive in breach of Clauses 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors' Code of Practice. The complainant said the article inaccurately implied that he was dead when, in fact, this was not the case.
Clauses alleged to have been contravened- 1, 2, 5
Adjudicated by- PCC
Outcome- The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of a letter from the complainant.
Date and newspaper- Oldham Evening Chronicle
24/01/2012
Case brought by- Karen Birch
Details of the case- Karen Birch complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published an inquest report into the death of her son which contained a number of inaccuracies.
Clauses alleged to have been contravened- 1
Adjudicated by- PCC
Outcome- he complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following correction and apology:
Chef inquest
A report of an inquest in the Oldham Evening Chronicle (November 10) headlined "Chef's final Facebook message" reported that Mr David Birch had been told he had lost his job. We accept that there was some ambiguity regarding whether this was the case, although this was stated in evidence at the inquest. We also incorrectly reported the location as being in the back garden and accept that neighbours did not help paramedics in an attempt to revive him. We apologise for any distress caused.
