IPSO launches new website
New site will make it easier to complain and provides updated information on IPSO's regulatory functions
We'd love your feedback so let us know what you think
|
|
Case study: Soames v the Sunday Times
Speculation about private medical information breaches MP's privacy
Read the full ruling here
Sir Nicholas Soames MP complained that The Sunday Times breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code in an article headlined “Soames’s mystery weight loss has Commons chewing the fat”.
The article reported Soames had “noticeably slimmed down following a spell away from the Commons” and that “regulars in the House of Commons tearoom” were speculating he had been fitted with a gastric band.
The complainant said the article’s specific references to gastric band surgery and back problems were private medical information. He acknowledged that as a public figure he was subject to press attention but said that this did not mean that he did not have a right to privacy in relation to his health – particularly as he had not publically discussed this.
The newspaper argued that Sir Nicholas’ physical appearance had always been a central part of his public image and it was not intrusive for the article to speculate over reasons for his sudden visible weight loss. It said they did not report the speculation as fact and that an unnamed source said the complainant had openly discussed the reasons for his loss of appetite with colleagues in the House of Commons tearoom, which was a public place.
The newspaper provided a copy of a text message the reporter had sent prior to publication of the article to which the complainant had responded “fuck off”. The newspaper said it considered the response to mean “no comment” and that the complainant did not provide a warning that he would consider publication an intrusion into his privacy. The complainant argued that the newspaper should have assumed that the response meant he considered the matter private.
IPSO’s Complaints Committee ruled that it was not intrusive to report the fact that the complainant had recently lost weight given the visible change in his appearance and the fact that that he is a public figure. However, the Committee made clear that the complainant did have a reasonable expectation of privacy around matters relating to his health. The Committee was not satisfied that the newspaper had demonstrated a sufficient public interest to justify publication.
It was speculation about this private medical information without the complainant’s consent which raised a breach of Clause 2. Therefore, they ordered the publication of an upheld adjudication on page 3 or further forward, and on the newspaper's website.
|
|
Case study: Lisle-Mainwaring v Mail Online
Harassment complaint not upheld as publication demonstrates persistant pursuit did not occur
Read the full ruling here
Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring complained that Mail Online breached Clause 4 (Harassment) in an article headlined “Property owner battles demand to repaint her red-and-white multi-million-pound Kensington townhouse which infuriated her super-rich neighbours”.
The article reported that the complainant had appeared in court to try to “overturn a demand” to repaint her house and included a photograph of her which showed her with her head under a coat.
The complainant said she considered that the photograph was taken in circumstances of harassment. She said she made clear to the photographer that she did not want her picture taken by covering her head with a coat, telling him she felt harassed by him, and asking “whether [he had] heard of the Protection from Harassment Act”. The complainant argued it was clear that she did not want to be photographed and that she had requested that the photographer desist.
The publication did not accept that the Editors’ Code had been breached. It said that when the photographer saw the complainant leaving with her coat over her head, he had taken four photographs over a period of six seconds and provided a copy of the photo roll in support of this.
During the encounter, the photographer did not say anything to the complainant and did not hear the complainant say anything to him. After taking the pictures, he immediately left the area; there was no request to desist, and given the brevity of the encounter, it would not have been possible for the photographer to have engaged in harassment.
The publication said the press was free to report the hearing and defended its right to report in the interests of open justice. It acknowledged that, by covering her face, the complainant had indicated she did not wish to be photographed and that the decision to include the image was given consideration prior to publication.
The publication decided that the complainant’s wish not to be photographed did not override its right to publish the image of an individual leaving a hearing in which they were involved as a litigant. It also noted that the complainant recognised that the planning dispute was newsworthy as she had given several interviews to other and had posed for photographs to accompany them.
The Complaints Committee acknowledged that the complainant had not wished to have her picture taken outside of court, and that she had indicated her wish by covering her face with a coat but there was no suggestion that the photographer had acted in a manner that was aggressive or intimidating.
The publication had been able to demonstrate by providing the photo roll that only four pictures had been taken of the complainant over a period of six seconds; taking this number of photographs in this time frame did not amount to persistent pursuit under the terms of the Code.
Therefore the complaint was not upheld.
|
|
|
|
