Resolution Statement – 03932-24 Macharia v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Esther Macharia complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Driver, 23, killed two friends who were twerking in the back of her Mini Cooper as it sped through suburban London at 62mph with the top down before crashing and overturning, court is told”, published on 25 March.

2. The article reported how a court had heard “a driver killed her two friends who were ‘twerking’ in the back of her convertible Mini Cooper as it sped at more than double the speed limit before crashing and overturning.” It stated the defendant “denie[d] causing death and serious injury by dangerous driving after [a named woman] and Mary Macharia, both 23, were killed following the car crash in Battersea in the early”. The article contained an image of a woman with the caption, “Mary Macharia (above) was sitting in the back seat with [a named woman] when [the defendant’s] Mini Cooper was involved in a collision which caused both passengers to suffer fatal head injuries”. The article included a photograph of the complainant.

3. The complainant – who was the sister of one of the women killed in the crash – said that the article had inaccurately included an image of her rather than her sister. She said she was not involved in the accident.

4. The complainant also said the article inaccurately described the way her sister and her friends had been dancing. She also said the article omitted context about the situation and focused on the defendant’s perspective.

5. The complainant also the article was in breach of Clause 4, due to the impact of both the article’s publication and the fact that it included a photograph of her .

6. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2 because the photograph’s publication had drawn unwanted attention to her.

7. The publication accepted a photograph of the complainant had been included instead of her sister. It said this was due to a regrettable human error, and that it had quickly corrected the inaccuracy. It said the article was first published on 25 March with the incorrect picture at 6:40pm, and the photograph was removed the next day at 12.36pm, after a third-party advised the publication a mistake had been made.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 4. It said while it acknowledged the regrettable case of mistaken identity, the error had been corrected within 24 hours and the image was not published with any intent to cause distress. It said, where there was a also a complaint under Clause 1, it did not regard it as proportionate for the human error to also be considered as a potential breach of Clause 4.

9. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2 of the Code. It said the image of the complainant was taken from a publicly available fundraising website, and it was therefore in the public domain.

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.

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.

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 the publication offered to make a payment to the complainant.

12. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.

13. 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: 29/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/08/2024