05457-24 A woman v The Chronicle (Newcastle)

Summary of Complaint

1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Chronicle (Newcastle) breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “'Serial' dating site conman fleeces three more victims”, published on 2 September 2024.

2. The article, which appeared on page 2, reported on the conviction of a “dating site conman”. In its opening paragraphs, it reported: “The devious 51-year-old, of [a street, a town, a borough] has now left three more women reeling financially and emotionally from his cruel deception, one of whom was even drawn into a ‘fake marriage’ to him”.

3. Further to the above, it reported on the conman’s “second victim” – the complainant. It reported:

“He made promises which weren’t kept, such as taking her to a Tyson Fury fight in Dubai when in fact they visited Dubai but didn’t go the fight. He spoke about buying a house […] a camper van and there was a promise of marriage and she accepted his proposal. There was also a promise of a £4,000 ring which never materialised.

She paid hundreds of pounds towards the camper van and house and other items. He told her they would get married in Dubai.

She said it was like a safari trip and an Arabian man appeared to marry them but she did not sign anything and received no paperwork.

Her friend ended up contacting her saying they had seen a post about [the convicted individual] on the Facebook page ‘Are we dating the same guy’.

There were pictures posted on there by another woman showing the same camper van she had been shown and the lodge in Northumberland where they had stayed. There were even pictures from Dubai taken during their trip.

In a victim impact statement, she said it had been a ‘fake marriage’ and added: ‘I will never trust another man again.’”

4. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline: “North Tyneside serial dating site conman back in jail for 'fairytale' frauds on three women”. This version was published on 30 August 2024.

5. On 30 August, following the publication of the online article, the complainant contacted the newspaper by telephone. She informed them that the article had reported her address as the address of the convicted individual – this was inaccurate, and caused her to fear for her safety.

6. In response, on the same day, the newspaper updated the online article. It removed the complainant’s street from the reported address, but left the remainder – so that the amended article referred to the complainant’s town, and borough, as the address of the convicted individual.

7. On 2 September, the print article was published. As set out above, this included the full address, as originally reported in the online version. Following this, the complainant complained to IPSO.

8. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it reported her address as the address of the convicted individual. She said that she had spoken to the Crown Prosecution Service, who had informed her that, while the address had not been heard in court, it had erroneously been given as the address of the convicted individual on some legal documents. She supplied the email from the CPS, which stated:

“By way of explanation, when [the convicted individual’s] case was committed from the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court on 28.3.24, the address provided on the committal paperwork was that at [the complainant’s address]”.

9. Nevertheless, the complainant noted that she had contacted the newspaper following the online article’s publication to inform it that this information was inaccurate - she considered it irresponsible it still went to print. She also complained under Clause 2 on this point – she said that her address should not have been reported, and reiterated that it caused her fear for her safety.

10. The complainant also raised a number of other alleged inaccuracies in the article, which she considered breached Clause 1. Firstly, she said it was inaccurate to report the convicted individual promised he would take “her to a Tyson Fury fight in Dubai when in fact they visited Dubai but didn’t go the fight”. She said the fight was in Saudi Arabia, and it was cancelled owing to an injury to Tyson Fury.

11. Further, she said the article was inaccurate to report that “[s]he paid hundreds of pounds towards the camper van and house and other items”, and that “[t]here was also a promise of a £4,000 ring which never materialised”. She denied that she had paid this amount of money toward a camper van and a house. She also said that the convicted individual had not promised her a ring of this value, rather, he had sent pictures of engagement rings of this value to a family member of hers.

12. Additionally, she disputed that any photographs were posted by her, or by other individuals relevant to the case, on the “Are we dating the same guy?” Facebook page. Finally, she disputed that the convicted individual “told her they would get married in Dubai”, and that there was a “promise of marriage” – she said that she, and the convicted individual, did travel to Dubai and that they had a ceremony which she had since learnt was not legally binding, and that they then “went on to have a jeep desert safari”.

13. The complainant also complained under Clause 4 that the article was inaccurate, and had added to her distress.

14. On 13 September, IPSO made the publication aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. On 16 September, the newspaper further amended the online article to remove the disputed address entirely, and refer to the convicted individual as being of “no fixed abode”.

15. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code. It noted that the disputed address was provided to it by the court - due care had therefore been taken by relying on information from the court, although the information provided by the court later turned out to be incorrect. To demonstrate this, it supplied an email from the court dated 30 August, which showed that, after the publication had requested the convicted individual’s details, the court had supplied the complainant’s address.

16. Further, the publication also said that the print and online publications have entirely separate editorial teams, and that only the online team had been informed of the issue by the complainant. It also said that it had not been confirmed by the court that the address was incorrect until after the publication of the print article – this confirmation was given at the courthouse on 5 September, and later on the same day, Northumbria Police had reissued a press release which referred to the convicted individual as being “of no fixed abode”.

17. On 15 November, during the course of IPSO’s investigation, it offered to publish a correction on this point. However, it noted that this would necessitate the republication of material the complainant had asked to be removed – namely, her address.

18. Regarding the remainder of the alleged inaccuracies, the publication stated that the reported information had been heard in court, and it was therefore satisfied that the article was accurate on these further points. It supplied its reporter’s notes from the hearing. The notes included the following:

"There was a promise of £4,000 ring but that never materialised"

"She spent £100s of money towards the camper van and house."

"Going to go to Tyson Fury match then that changed to simply going to Dubai".

"Ultimately a friend of hers contacted her saying had seen a post about the defendant on Facebook 'Are we dating the same guy'. A comment from that page showed pictures she had received from the defendant."

"She ([the complainant]) said 'There were pics of the camper van, the lodge we stayed at in Northumberland, pictures of him in Dubai during our trip’."

"There was a promise of marriage after he proposed and she said yes”.

“This is from the victim impact statement, in which she referred to it as a ‘fake marriage, fake marriage certificate’".

19. Responding to the complainant’s Clause 2 concerns, the publication noted that the reported address was only a partial address – it did not include the house number or name. It reiterated that it was entitled to rely on information provided by the court, and noted that a partial address is generally not capable of identifying an individual.

20. The publication did not accept that the terms of Clause 4 were engaged by the complainant’s concerns.

21. In response, the complainant said that, when she contacted the newspaper originally, she had not been instructed to contact multiple departments within the newspaper. She also noted that, at that stage, she was unaware a print article was going to be published – she said it would have been “common sense” to stop the disputed address going to print.

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.

Findings of the Committee

22. The Committee began with Clause 1, and the reporting of the complainant’s address.

23. The online article was published on 30 August, and referred to the convicted individual’s address as that of the complainant. While this was inaccurate, it was not in dispute that this information had been provided by the court – the complainant had supplied an email from the CPS demonstrating that the address had been recorded on the convicted individual’s committal paperwork, while the publication had supplied an email from the court sent to its reporter, which included the address.

24. The print article had then been published on 2 September – and the Committee took into account that the complainant had contacted the newspaper prior to the publication of the print article, and had informed them that the reported address was inaccurate.

25. However, it also had regard for the context of the article – it was a court report, regarding the conviction of the “dating site conman”, and the newspaper had reported information directly provided to it by the court. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider there to be a failure to take care in respect of either version of the article – while it appreciated that the complainant had contacted the newspaper prior to the print article's publication, it was still entitled to rely upon information provided by a trusted and reliable source which had not, at the time, been retracted or corrected. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point – although the Committee did not consider it best practice, on the publication’s part, for concerns not to be conveyed internally across the relevant editorial teams.

26. The Committee then turned to whether the article was significantly inaccurate or misleading, and required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

27. It has long been recognised by the Committee that newspapers are responsible for accurately reporting what is heard in court – they are not responsible for the accuracy of what is heard by the court. In this case, it was not in dispute that the reported address had been provided by the court as the address of the convicted individual.

28. The Committee appreciated that the information given by the court was inaccurate. However, where this was a court report, and as the newspaper reported the information provided by the court in question, the Committee did not consider there were sufficient grounds to find that the article had reported on the information disclosed by the court in a manner which was significantly inaccurate. Nevertheless, the Committee welcomed that the information had been removed following the complaint. There was no breach of Clause 1 in relation to the address.

29. The Committee then turned to the other disputed information in the article. The complainant had said that the article inaccurately reported: “He made promises which weren’t kept, such as taking her to a Tyson Fury fight in Dubai when in fact they visited Dubai but didn’t go the fight”. She said the fight was in Saudi Arabia, and it was cancelled owing to an injury to Tyson Fury.

30. The publication had supplied its reporter’s notes from the court hearing, which made reference to: “Going to go to Tyson Fury match then that changed to simply going to Dubai". The Committee considered that the reported line tallied with the information heard in court, and made clear that the complainant had intended to visit a boxing fight with the convicted individual, which had not ultimately happened – therefore, there was no failure to take care over the accuracy of this information. The Committee also did not consider the fact that the fight was in Saudi Arabia, as opposed to Dubai, or that this did not happen due to an injury to one of the boxers, represented a significant inaccuracy - it was not in dispute that the complainant had been told that she would be taken to a boxing match in the middle east, and that this had not happened. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

31. Next, the complainant had complained that the article inaccurately reported: “There was a promise of marriage and she accepted his proposal. He told her they would get married in Dubai. She said it was like a safari trip and an Arabian man appeared to marry them but she did not sign anything and received no paperwork”. The complainant had said that she, and the convicted individual, did travel to Dubai and had a ceremony, which she later found out was not legally binding.

32. The Committee noted, as per the reporter’s notes, that the following had been heard in court: “There was a promise of marriage after he proposed and she said yes”. The reporter’s notes also referred to the complainant’s victim impact statement, which referred to a: “fake marriage, fake marriage certificate”. In light of this, the Committee did not consider the article inaccurate or misleading to refer to there being a “promise of marriage” – particularly where it did not appear to be in dispute that there had been a marriage ceremony, and only after the ceremony had the complainant discovered it was not legally binding. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

33. The Committee took into account the fact that the reporter’s notes did not make reference to the trip being like a “safari”, as reported in the article. However, it had regard for the complainant’s complaint to IPSO – she had stated that: “Although we had a ceremony which I have since found out is not legal binding, we then went on to have a jeep desert safari”. As such, the Committee considered the information put forward by the complainant tallied with the information reported in the article – in any event, it also considered the article made clear the salient point, as the complainant had accepted, that she had married the convicted individual in a ceremony which later turned out to be fake. There was no breach of the Clause 1 on this point.

34. The complainant had also stated that the article inaccurately reported that “[s]he paid hundreds of pounds towards the camper van and house and other items”, and that “[t]here was also a promise of a £4,000 ring which never materialised”. She denied that she had paid this amount of money, and said that the convicted individual had only sent pictures of engagement rings of this value to a family member of hers. The complainant had said that no photographs were posted by her, or by other individuals relevant to the case, on the “Are we dating the same guy?” Facebook page.

35. Again, the Committee took into account the publication’s reporter’s notes. They had demonstrated that it had been heard in court that: “There was a promise of £4,000 ring but that never materialised”; "She spent £100s of money towards the camper van and house", and “"Ultimately a friend of hers contacted her saying had seen a post about the defendant on Facebook 'Are we dating the same guy'”.

36. The Committee appreciated that the complainant disputed the accuracy of these statements – however, in light of this, the Committee was satisfied that the disputed information was heard in court, and the article was not inaccurate or misleading to report it. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

37. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns regarding the reporting of her address under Clause 2. It recognised, again, that the partial address reported was provided by the court, and that the newspaper was entitled to report it. The addresses of defendants, and convicted individuals, are commonly given in court to allow for the accurate identification of those involved in trials or criminal matters.

38. The Committee appreciated that the address reported in this case, however, was not that of the convicted individual, but rather, was that of the complainant. Nevertheless, it recognised that individuals generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their partial address – it is not inherently private information in and of itself, although can become so, if published in conjunction with other private information which constitutes an intrusion into someone’s private life. In this case, however, while the article included the complainant’s address, it did not report that the address was the complainant’s – indeed, the article also did not name or identify her, or provide a direct link between her and the reported address. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider that inaccurately reporting her partial address as that of the convicted individual represented a breach of Clause 2.

39. The Committee then turned to Clause 4. It appreciated that the matter had caused undue distress for the complainant. However, the terms of Clause 4 stipulate publication should be handled sensitively. The Committee considered that the article, where it reported on the complainant’s involvement with the convicted individual, did not seek to make light of or trivialise the matter. The Committee also did not consider that the article included any inaccuracies in breach of the Code, and recognised that the newspaper was entitled to report upon the information heard aloud at court. In light of these factors, there was no breach of Clause 4 on this point.

Conclusions

40. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 02/09/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 10/03/2025