00713-24 Ahmed v The Courier

Summary of Complaint

1. Fahd Ahmed complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Courier breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “‘Paralysed with fear’ after abuse”, published on 29 January 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page 11 – reported on the experience of a survivor of domestic abuse. It reported that the complainant was the perpetrator of this domestic abuse. It said that the complainant’s former wife said “she feared she would be killed when her husband started abusing her just days into their arranged marriage. The woman has spoken out for the first time about the ‘paralysing’ abuse she suffered at the hands of Fahd Ahmed.” It said that the “34-year-old woman, who is too afraid to be named, has told her story after Ahmed was convicted of abusing her over the course of several weeks last year.” The article also reported that the woman told the publication: “’No one should have to suffer what I have gone through. I thought I was going to be killed. The abuse within my marriage has left me with nothing. I’m still suffering trauma and he still has everything that belongs to me – even my underwear.’” It went on to report that “[t]he woman says she wed Ahmed in an arranged marriage in Livingston in February 2023, and moved there to live with him.”

3. The article then reported: “Ahmed admitted that between March 8 and May 23 2023, he had engaged in a course of abusive behaviour towards the woman. This included repeatedly shouting at her and making threats, attempting to deprive her of her mobile phone, repeatedly demanding her pin number for her mobile, repeatedly uttering derogatory remarks and seizing her clothing, causing it to rip”. It said the complainant was “sentenced to a community payback order at Livingston Sheriff Court, with supervision for 20 months and a requirement he attends a domestic abuse programme for the same period. He was also given a year-long non-harassment order.” The article quoted the victim who reportedly said, “What he did to me physically and mentally has left me paralysed with fear” and “He made lots of threats. I thought I would be killed if I didn’t get out.”

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same form under the headline “Dundee woman feared she would be killed by abusive husband”.

5. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (i) as it suggested he had not returned his wife’s personal belongings. He said he had returned two storage units full of her belongings and a removal van had collected further items. He said personal belongings including clothing were returned to his wife on 24 June 2023 and 19 July 2023, and further items were collected by the removal van on 5 December 2023.

6. On 22 February 2024, the complainant provided WhatsApp messages sent on 5 December 2023 to the removal company. These included a list of items which had been returned to the complainant’s former wife. The complainant said that, since the WhatsApp messages had been sent and the further items collected, no other items had been requested. Therefore, he said it was inaccurate to report the woman’s claim that the “abuse within my marriage has left me with nothing" and that "he still ha[d] everything that belongs to me - even my underwear”.

7. The complainant also said that the article was inaccurate as the article referred to physical abuse suffered by the victim and that she feared she would be killed by him, which he denied. The complainant said there was no behaviour that could support the conclusion that she feared she would be killed. He also said that he did not plead guilty to any charge in relation to physically abusive behaviour, however the headline and the text of the article suggested the abuse was physical.

8. The complainant also said the article had inaccurately referred to his marriage as an “arranged” marriage. He said that he met his former wife and introduced her to his family as their relationship progressed naturally, and that his parents and his former wife’s parents did not know each other beforehand. He said that portraying the marriage as an arranged marriage which immediately failed gave a distorted and misleading impression and that there is a stigma regarding arranged marriages in certain communities. The complainant said that if the publication had contacted him prior to the article, he would have been able to set the record straight on the above points.

9. The complainant initially contacted the publication directly on 1 February. The publication responded on 5 February, and told the complainant it did not accept a breach of the Code. IPSO made the publication aware of the IPSO complaint on 23 February.

10. The publication said that, in regard to the claim made about the former wife’s belongings, it did not consider the reporting to be significantly inaccurate on this point; it said that these issues were secondary to the main message which the article was conveying, which was a woman’s experience of domestic abuse. It also said the former wife maintained she had not received her belongings. However, on 26 February, the publication offered to remove the following sentences: "The abuse within my marriage has left me with nothing” and “I'm still suffering trauma and he still has everything that belongs to me – even my underwear."

11. In regard to the article’s reporting of the domestic abuse against the complainant’s former wife, the publication said the complainant did not dispute he had pleaded guilty to a course of abusive behaviour toward her. It highlighted that the charge was set out in the article: “Ahmed admitted that between March 8 and May 23 2023, he had engaged in a course of abusive behaviour towards the woman. This included repeatedly shouting at her and making threats, attempting to deprive her of her mobile phone, repeatedly demanding her pin number for her mobile, repeatedly uttering derogatory remarks and seizing her clothing, causing it to rip”. The publication said it did not accept the complainant’s position that there was no physical element to the abuse; he had admitted to seizing the woman’s clothing until it ripped. Further to this, it said that the article was the woman’s account of events, and she had used the phrase "emotionally and physically paralysed" to describe her trauma. The publication said she had a right to express a view of her lived experience, including her belief that she was going to be killed by her husband. It said that it was in the public interest to report taboos that still exist around domestic abuse in all its forms, and to ensure that those who have suffered abuse are given a voice.

12. The publication said it had accurately reported the victim’s testimony of the abuse and had taken care in doing do. To support its position, it provided an email from the court confirming that the article accurately reported that the complainant had pleaded guilty to the offence described in the article.

13. Turning to the article’s use of the phrase “arranged marriage”, the publication said the reporter had made specific inquiries with the complainant’s former wife on this point. It said it was her view that she had entered an arranged marriage, albeit one in which the parties did have some time to get to know one another prior to the wedding. The publication said it had taken care not to publish inaccurate information in this instance and did not consider this to be significantly inaccurate in circumstances where one party to the marriage considered this to be the case.

14. The publication said the reporter had taken care over the accuracy of the article. It said she had spoken with the victim on the phone and later, on 17 January 2024, interviewed her face to face. It provided notes and transcripts from the interviews. The notes quoted included the following quotes from the woman:

· “It was a mixture of physical and mental abuse.”

· “I just couldn’t function. I couldn’t even get out of bed, I felt emotionally and physically paralysed.”

· “It was next level abuse. I was very scared and didn’t really function as a normal person. I lost myself.

· “He made lots of threats. I didn’t realise the danger I was in at the beginning. I thought I would been killed if I didn’t get out.”

· "This was an arranged marriage. […] It was first arranged that I go to visit him to meet him for the first-time late summer 2022. This was arranged by our families. I was allowed to meet him a few times before our wedding.”

· “I was unable to return to work after the abuse. He stole all my belongings. He has not returned £60,000 worth of belongings, including underwear”.

· “I still don't have many things back. I came back to Dundee but didn't have my belongings. I had no ID no passport, no driving licence. He took everything, He took my life.”

15. The publication also supplied a letter from a support worker, sent on 28 September 2023, which stated that the woman “was left without any of her personal belongings and essentials”.

16. The publication also provided a statement from the victim where she said “Fahd physically, emotionally, mentally and financially abused me. To the point I was going to killing in an honour-based killing style [sic]”.

17. On 18 April, 80 days after the article was published and 78 days after the complainant first made the publication aware of his concerns, it offered to publish a correction in its usual Corrections and Clarifications section on page 2:

“In a story headlined "Paralysed with fear' after abuse" published in The Courier on January 29, 2024, convicted domestic abuser Fahd Ahmed has requested that The Courier reflect his viewpoint that all personal belongings were returned to his victim in advance of publication of our story. Further, Mr Ahmed has asked The Courier to state that he does not accept his marriage to his victim was an ‘arranged marriage’, contrary to what was originally reported. We are happy to put the viewpoint of Mr Ahmed, who pled guilty at Livingston Sheriff Court to a course of domestic abuse towards his victim last year, on record.”

18. On the same day, it offered to publish the following correction as a footnote to the online version of the article:

“The above story has been modified since first publication in order to reflect Fahd Ahmed's view that all personal belongings were returned to his victim in advance of publication of our story. Further, Mr Ahmed has asked The Courier to state that he does not accept his marriage to his victim was an ‘arranged marriage’, contrary to what was originally reported. We are happy to put Mr Ahmed's viewpoint on record.”

19. The publication said it was not necessary to contact the complainant for his position prior to the publication of the article. It said it is not industry practice to approach a convicted criminal for comment in relation to issues that arose from their crimes. It said the complainant admitted his responsibility for a prolonged course of abuse towards his former wife in a public hearing at Livingston Sheriff Court. It said it was not necessary to make an approach for comment in these circumstances. It further noted that it had checked with the Crown Court the details of his guilty plea.

20. The complainant said his former wife had every right to express what she was feeling, but not if the information was inaccurate and intended to cause him damage. He said her account was based on a false premise, and portrayed as a true account of their marriage, rather than her claims. He confirmed that he had pleaded guilty to “seizing [the victim’s] clothing, causing it to rip”. He said that this involved a slight tear at the pocket of her cardigan. He said there was no narrative in the charge as to the circumstances or mechanism surrounding ‘seizing’ her clothing, and that he did not consider this act could made the woman fear she would be killed as described in the article and online headline. The complainant said the terms of his guilty plea were clear, and that he had not been charged with any matter related to the endangerment of life.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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.

Findings of the Committee

21. The Committee noted that the woman was entitled to share her experience of being a victim of domestic abuse. It was not the role of the Committee to determine whether or not the complainant had abused the woman. Rather, this was the role of the courts, and the findings of the court were set out in the article: the complainant was “convicted of abusing [the woman] over the course of several weeks” and “admitted that […] he had engaged in a course of abusive behaviour towards the woman”. The role of the Committee was to rule on whether the publication had breached the terms of the Editors’ Code.

22. The Committee noted that the article quoted the woman as having said that the “abuse within [her] marriage has left [her] with nothing" and that she was "still suffering trauma and [the complainant] still has everything that belongs to [her] – even [her] underwear. The publication was entitled to rely on the woman as a reliable source of information of what had occurred during her marriage and had demonstrated it had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information by supplying a transcript of her interview where she had made comments such as: “He stole all my belongings. He has not returned £60,000 worth of belongings, including underwear” and “he took everything”. It had also supplied a further letter written by a support worker which had supported the claim she was left with “nothing”, albeit this letter was written in September 2023, 4 months prior to the article, during which time, items may have been returned. For the above reasons, the Committee did not find a breach of Clause 1(i).

23. The complainant had provided WhatsApp messages which confirmed a list of belongings had been returned on 5 December 2023 at the latest – over a month prior to publication – and had said that many belongings were returned in June and July of 2023. While the Committee noted that it appeared to be accepted by the complainant that the woman had been “left with nothing” for a substantial period, where the complainant was able to demonstrate that he had returned some of her belongings, the Committee concluded on balance that the article was significantly misleading, as it gave the impression that at the time of publication, the complainant had not returned any of the belongings, when in fact he had demonstrated that he had returned some items prior to the article’s publication. As the Committee had identified that this was significantly misleading, a correction was required to put his position on record in accordance with Clause 1 (ii).

24. The next question for the Committee was whether the publication had offered a correction promptly and prominently and whether the wording corrected the inaccuracy in line with the requirements of Clause 1 (ii). On 22 February 2024, the complainant had produced WhatsApps which indicated he had returned a substantial amount of items. The publication had been made aware of the WhatsApps on 23 February and offered to remove the disputed reference on 26 February as a gesture of goodwill. On 18 April, it had proposed an online footnote correction and print correction which would appear on page 2 in the Corrections and Clarifications column, both of which made clear the complainant’s “view”. The Committee was satisfied that the offered corrections were sufficiently prominent where the inaccuracy had appeared in the text of the article and on page 11 respectively. However, where the publication had access to the evidence to support his position on 23 February, the Committee considered the offer of these corrections 55 days after this was not sufficiently prompt. It also did not consider the wording adequately corrected the inaccuracy Therefore there was a breach of Clause 1(ii).

25. The complainant did not dispute that he had pleaded guilty to a charge of engaging in a course of abuse against his former wife, though he said that the article had inaccurately portrayed the nature of the abuse against the woman as he had never physically abused her. The article quoted the woman as having said: “What he did to me physically and mentally has left me paralysed with fear”. The article reported that the complainant had admitted that he had engaged in a course of abusive behaviour towards her and then set out the complainant’s conduct which included that he had “seiz[ed the woman’s] clothing, causing it to rip”. Given that the complainant did not dispute that he had seized the woman’s clothing, causing it to rip, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to report her comment about what the complainant had done to her “physically”, in circumstances where his actions had been described in the article. The Committee also noted that the article had made clear it was the woman’s characterisation of the complainant’s conduct – this was made clear by the use of quotation marks and phrases such as “[th]e woman told The Courier”. For these reasons, the Committee did not consider that the inclusion of the woman’s comment gave rise to an inaccuracy and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

26. Turning to the article’s claims that the woman feared “she would be killed”, the article quoted her as having said: “I thought I was going to be killed” and “What he did to me physically and mentally has left me paralysed with fear”. Firstly, as above, the Committee noted that the article had made clear it was the victim’s interpretation of events through the use of quotation marks and framing the article as the woman’s experience: “The woman has spoken out for the first time”. It was not in dispute that the complainant had made these remarks, and the publication was also able to provide a transcript from the interview and a statement which supported the article’s claim and quotes that the victim feared for her life and that she was “paralysed with fear”. In addition, the complainant was not in a position to dispute what the woman had felt, or the impact of his actions on her. For these reasons, the Committee did not consider the above references were inaccurate, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

27. The Committee next considered whether the article’s use of the term “arranged marriage” breached the terms of Clause 1. It noted that the woman had considered the marriage to be an “arranged marriage” and had referred to it in this way in the transcript the publication had provided. While the Committee understood the complainant did not consider his marriage had been “arranged”, the article was a report of the woman’s experience of their relationship, and it was not in dispute that she believed her marriage was arranged. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

28. The Committee also considered whether the publication should have contacted the complainant prior to the publication of the article as part of the Code’s requirement to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. The Committee noted that a right or reply or an obligation to contact interested parties prior to the publication of an article is not a standalone requirement under the Code. The Committee noted that the article had reported on the woman’s experience of her abuse and that it that her experiences had been corroborated by a support worker, and the abuse had resulted in a conviction of the complainant. In this instance, the Committee did not consider it was necessary to contact the complainant prior to publication and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

29. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

30. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

31. The article had quoted the woman, who had said that “[t]he abuse within [her] marriage ha[d] left [her] with nothing. I’m still suffering trauma and [the complainant] still has everything that belongs to me – even my underwear.” The Committee acknowledged that the complainant disputed this and had provided evidence to suggest he had returned some of her belongings. The Committee decided that a correction would be the appropriate remedial action, given the article reported accurately on the complainant’s conviction; the fact that this did not form the main thrust of the article; and the fact that the claim had been distinguished as the woman’s comment.

32. The publication had amended this reference once it had been made aware of the misleading statement in the online article and later offered to publish a correction in print and online; it had therefore taken steps to remedy the misleading statement. However, the wording did not correct the misleading statement, and the offer of corrective action was not undertaken with due promptness, given the lapse in time between the publication being made aware of the complainant’s concerns and the offer of the correction. However, the Committee also noted that the misleading statement arose from a single reference in the article and therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that the appropriate remedy was an amended correction.

33. The Committee considered that the placement of the proposed correction was sufficiently prominent, and that the corrections required by IPSO could be published in the same locations. However, in light of the fact that the complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (ii), the wording of the corrections should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that they have been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. The corrections should identify the original inaccuracy and set out the correct position.

Date complaint received: 13/02/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 10/07/2024