Ruling

00764-24 Dyer and Dyer v mirror.co.uk

  • Complaint Summary

    Mark and Clare Dyer complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Menacing gang' of pensioners sued for £1.3m for 'harassing' millionaire neighbours”, published on 16 May 2023.

    • Published date

      25th July 2024

    • Outcome

      No breach - after investigation

    • Code provisions

      1 Accuracy, 2 Privacy

Summary of Complaint

1. Mark and Clare Dyer complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Menacing gang' of pensioners sued for £1.3m for 'harassing' millionaire neighbours”, published on 16 May 2023.

2. The article reported on an application for an interim injunction in harassment proceedings, which had been brought by the complainants against four of their neighbours “pending their full claim at a later date”. The complainants’ neighbours were named and photographs of them also appeared in the article. It also reported that “on top of” the application for the interim injunction, the complainants were “suing for £1.3m compensation to reflect the alleged drop in property value caused by the slew of [planning] objections”. The article stated that the complainants were “millionaires” and reported the value of their house. In addition, the article included an aerial image of the complainants’ property, which was attributed to a news agency in the photo caption, as well as planning drawings of the road where the complainants’ house was located.

3. The complainants said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. They noted they are party to two separate sets of legal proceedings: the application for the interim injunction referred to in the article and a case involving the height of a hedge. They said that the latter case did not involve the same parties and related to a different subject matter. The complainants believed that the article conflated the two cases and, in doing so, had sensationalised their legal proceedings. They said that reporting on the high hedge complaint was not in the public interest, and noted that they had not yet issued proceedings for a “£1.3 million compensation [claim]”.

4. The complainants also said the article was inaccurate as their legal representatives had not been contacted for comment prior to the article’s publication. They said they had previously issued a notice through IPSO to the publication, relating to a separate matter, which stated that they did not wish to be contacted directly, and that any press enquiries about the subject matter of the notice should be addressed to their legal representatives.

5. The complainants said the article also intruded into their private lives, in breach of Clause 2, due to the publication of both the aerial photograph and planning drawings. They said that these images revealed the location and layout of their home as well as the cars at the property, and that this information, in conjunction with the claims about the value of their house, had made them concerned for their safety. The complainants believed that the aerial image of their home had been taken using a drone, though during IPSO’s investigation they clarified that they had not seen or been disturbed by a drone taking images of the house. The complainants also considered that the article breached Clause 2 as they said it was critical of them. The also expressed concern that the article was classist on the basis of their perceived success.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the case relating to the injunction and the “high hedge” case were closely linked. To support its position on this point, it noted that in the judgment of the application for an interim injunction the Judge stated that it related to “a long-running, acrimonious and seemingly irresolvable dispute between neighbours in a village in the Surrey Hills” and referred to a “high hedge” complaint on 17 occasions. The publication said its reporting was therefore an accurate reflection of the judgment in the application for an interim injunction, and further that concerns that the reporting was sensationalist did not engage the Code.

7. Furthermore, the publication said the article was based on a publicly available court judgment, which it was entitled to report on. It said it was not obliged to contact complainants in advance of publishing an article which simply reported court proceedings.

8. The publication also did not accept that the complainants had a reasonable expectation of privacy over any of the information included within the article. It said that the images used in the article contained the same information as images which had appeared in the evidence bundle at the hearing presented in open court, did not disclose anything private or personal, and did not depict any people or events – they simply showed the property. The publication also provided an aerial image of the complainant’s house that was publicly available on Google Maps, and said that the image included in the article did not contain any additional information beyond what was already disclosed in this publicly available image. Therefore, it said there could not be an expectation of privacy in respect of the information contained in the image included in the article. Finally, it noted that the publicly available judgment set out the village and the name of the road the complainants’ property bordered, and this information was therefore already in the public domain.

9. The complainant said the images published in the article had not appeared in the evidence bundle of the court proceedings which the article reported on. It said an image of the complainant’s house appeared to have been taken from a property listing website, and the other images were drawings. The complainant provided some pages from the evidence bundle, which included different aerial images of the property.

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.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental 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.

Findings of the Committee

10. The complainants were concerned that the article was inaccurate because it conflated two legal cases. The Committee noted that the article made clear that “the case reached court last week as [the complainants] applied for an injunction against their neighbours, pending their full claim at a later date”. Where the text of the article made clear that the article was reporting on the complainants’ application for an injunction, the Committee did not find that the article was inaccurate, particularly as the complainants accepted that the high hedge complaint had been cited in the proceedings as an example of the complained about behaviour. The complainants also considered that the article was inaccurate because they had not sued their neighbours for £1.3 million compensation. The Committee had regard to the Judgment of the court in which the Judge had noted: - “It is alleged that there has been a diminution of value of Mrs Dyer’s properties caused by the respondents’ harassment. Accordingly, she claims damages for harassment to reflect the loss of value of the properties of 18 per cent, namely £1,332,000. The applicants’ claim is to restrain the respondents from harassing them and for damages under sections 1 and 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”)…”. The Committee also noted that the article made clear that the complainants’ application for an injunction was “pending their full claim at a later date”. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the report that the complainants were “suing for £1.3m compensation to reflect the alleged drop in property value caused by the slew of [planning] objections” was significantly inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point. In addition, the Committee did not consider that “sensationalist” reporting engaged the terms of Clause 1; provided an article is not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted, and comment is distinguished from conjecture, newspapers can present the information in their articles as they see fit.

11. The complainants had also said that not contacting them prior to publication breached the terms of Clause 1. The Committee was clear that the Editors’ Code does not include a standalone requirement for publications to contact interested parties before publishing articles. In some cases, it may be necessary to contact individuals in order to take care that the article is accurate, or to give interested parties the opportunity to respond to any significant inaccuracies in published articles. In this case, the article did not include any inaccurate information. Whilst the publication had previously been sent a notice asking that any press enquiries about a separate matter be directed to the complainants’ legal representatives, this did not equate to the publication being obliged to contact them in relation to any future stories. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

12. The complainants said that the publication of the aerial photograph and planning drawings breached the terms of Clause 2. In terms of the information revealed by the photographs, which showed the layout of the complainants’ property from above, this did not reveal any additional material information to that contained in the image freely available on Google Maps. In addition, the report of the approximate value of the complainants’ property did not amount to an intrusion into the complainants’ private lives and was not information in respect of which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. There was no breach of Clause 2 on these points.

13. The Committee also noted that the complainants’ concerns that the article criticised them, or was classist based on their wealth or assets, did not relate to concerns that the publication had intruded into their private and family lives without justification. In such circumstances, the terms of Clause 2 were not engaged.

Conclusions

14. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

15. N/A


Date complaint received: 15/02/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/07/2024