06167-24 Richard v ayrshire-today.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Greg Richard complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that ayrshire-today.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article headlined “Cumnock child sex abuse image creep took pics in toilets”, published on 13 November 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on a court case, during the course of which the complainant had pleaded guilty to the possession of explicit images of children. The article reported that the complainant “hid in the male toilets from the Chronicle’s reporter for more than an hour at Ayr Sheriff Court, after he appeared for a hearing”.

3. The article quoted the Procurator Fiscal in the case, who was reported as having said: “On June 1, 2023 a search warrant was actioned at [an address] in Cumnock. […] During the search the accused returned with his mother. Among the sexually explicit material recovered, there were 117 unique still images, 114 were found in locations that were accessible. They showed males aged from four to 16. Forty-three moving images were found on both devices, all accessible, with ages ranging from three to 16.”

4. The article then quoted the Procurator Fiscal as follows:

“police found videos and voyeuristic images. Examples include a 55-second video in a changing room, with the camera often covered by a hand, showing various males getting changed into school uniforms. "Next is a 110-second video in a changing room setting, again showing various males in school uniform getting changed into sportswear, focusing on one male in particular. A nine-second video in a classroom setting filmed under a desk shows a male in school uniform grabbing his genitals. They found a still image of a male sitting on a toilet using his phone taken from above a neighbouring toilet, his underwear is down below his thighs, it is not possible to determine his age. There is another still image in a toilet cubicle again and thereafter a video of the same thing.”

5. The article included two photographs of the complainant: one showed the complainant leaving court with his face covered by a hood. The other photograph showed the complainant’s face, and appeared to be a posed picture.

6. The complainant contacted IPSO on 6 November, prior to the publication of the article, to raise concerns about the conduct of a reporter acting on behalf of the newspaper. He said that, while he was on court premises for his case, the reporter in question had stared at him and proceeded to wait outside court for him. The complainant said this breached Clause 3.

7. The complainant set out in more detail what had occurred. He said that, as he felt harassed and unsafe, re-entered the building to wait in the court toilets. The complainant said that, while he was in the toilet, an individual turned the taps on and off in an attempt to annoy him, although the complainant did not know whether this was the journalist. After an hour, he opened the toilet door and said that the journalist was staring at him. The complainant then re-entered the cubicle for a short time and said that the police knocked on the door due to concerns raised by a member of the public. The complainant then left the court; he said that, as he left, the journalist walked ahead of him, in an attempt to take his photograph. The complainant said that as he was leaving, he asked the journalist to “stop watching me” and to leave him alone, although he didn’t think the reporter was listening as he did not respond to either these requests. Given the nature of the complainant’s conviction, and the fact that the journalist did not identify himself, the complainant said he believed the journalist was a threat to his safety.

8. After the publication of the article, the complainant made further complaints under Clause 1 and Clause 2. He said the article had breached Clause 1 as it published his previous address – which he said was incorrect - and included details of his mother and father which were irrelevant to the story. He also said the article inaccurately suggested his parents knew of his actions, when they did not.

9. The complainant also said the article inaccurately said he had “returned with his mother" to his house during the police search. He said this was inaccurate as he was at work at the time he received the call to return home, and that no reference to his mother returning with him to his house was made during the trial.

10. He further said the examples the article used to describe the media found on his device were inaccurate, as well as the number of images found – though, when asked to explain why this was the case, and how many images had been found, the complainant declined to provide this information.

11. The complainant also said that the article had breached Clause 2, because it included a photograph of him which he had been taken from a competition website. He said the photograph had been reproduced without either his or the website owner’s consent.

12. The complainant said that the published article supported his position that he had been harassed – and that there had been a breach of Clause 3 – as it referenced the fact that he had hidden in the toilets for an hour to avoid the reporter.

13. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning first to the Clause 3 complaint, it said that the reporter was present during the complainant’s court case and, following the conclusion of the hearing, waited outside the court building for the complainant to exit the building to take a picture of him. It said that it was entitled to photograph defendants in criminal cases, and there was nothing improper about the reporter’s decision to wait outside the court so that he might take a photograph. When the complainant did not leave, the publication said the reporter re-entered the court building and, assuming the complainant was in the toilet, waited outside.

14. The publication said the reporter entered the toilets on one occasion to use the facilities, but did not engage in conversation with the complainant, or turn on any taps in an “attempt to annoy” the complainant. It said the reporter had then spoken to court staff and a police officer inside the building to make them aware that the complainant had remained inside the toilets for more than an hour as he was concerned for his welfare.

15. The publication said the reporter did not pose a threat to the complainant’s safety, nor did he engage in any threatening, abusive, or harassing behaviour. It said the reporter acted in a professional manner while conducting his court reporting duties in the public interest. It also said the reporter was permitted to enter and leave the court building, and there was no requirement for him to identify himself to the complainant.

16. The publication said it did not accept that the journalist had followed the complainant: he waited for the complainant to leave the court building, so that he could obtain a photograph of him.

17. The publication also did not accept that the complainant spoke to the reporter. The publication said people often speak to the reporter during the course of the day and that he is always able to hear individuals clearly – therefore, it did not consider it likely that the complainant had asked the reporter to desist.

18. The publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said the reporting was fair, balanced and accurate, and that all of the information reported in the article came from the hearing and from papers provided by the court. It said the address included in the article had been heard in court, and was recorded in the original indictment against the complainant. It said that the complainant had, since the article’s publication, appeared in court for his sentencing – and that, during this hearing, a new address had been given for the complainant. It said it would use the new address in future coverage, but this did not mean that it was inaccurate for the article under complaint to reference the complainant’s previous address.

19. The publication provided a transcript of the reporter’s notes, which were in shorthand. These said: “PF [procurator fiscal]: Police attended with the search warrant and the accused's father was within, they recovered a number of devices. During the search the accused and his mother returned home, both had the content of the warrant explained to him.” The publication said this demonstrated it had been heard in court that the complainant had returned home accompanied by his mother during the police search – and, if it was inaccurate, the complainant should have made his solicitor aware. It said it would be happy to amend the reference if the solicitor was able to confirm the reference was inaccurate.

20. The publication said the article accurately reported the examples of the media found on the complainant’s device described at court and provided an excerpt of the reporter’s notes to support this. The notes tallied with what the article reported.

21. The publication also said that it had accurately reported the number of 117 images and 43 videos which was again, consistent with the reporter’s notes which said: “there were 117 unique still images, 114 were found in locations that were accessible to the user of the device”; and “[f]orty-three moving images were found on both devices”.

22. The publication said the article did not breach Clause 2. It accepted that the photograph of the complainant had been taken from a competition website. It said it had contacted the website in advance of the article’s publication to ask for permission to reproduce the photograph – and the website had raised no issue with the publication using the photo, as long as its branding was cropped out. The newspaper also said the image was in the public domain and the complainant had consented to the picture being taken previously. It also noted that that the complainant was not the photograph’s copyright holder.

23. With regard to Clause 2, the complainant said he had contacted the competition website which said it expressly denied any request to use the photograph.

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 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Findings of the Committee

24. The Committee first considered the journalist’s conduct. The complainant said the journalist had breached Clause 3, as he had acted in an intimidating and harassing way.

25. The complainant said that the journalist had stared at him in a manner which he found intimidating. While the Committee understood that this made the complainant uncomfortable, it did not consider watching an individual, in and of itself, constituted harassment or intimidating behaviour. The reporter was simply waiting to take the complainant’s photograph, which he was entitled to do. There was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.

26. The complainant had expressed concern that the journalist had waited for him outside a toilet. While the Committee accepted that this may have made the complainant feel awkward or uncomfortable, it did not follow that the act of standing in a public space, so that he might obtain a photograph of the complainant, constituted harassment on the part of the journalist. There was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.

27. The complainant also said the journalist had not identified himself, and that this caused him concern for his safety given the nature of his charges. The Committee noted that the complainant had not asked the reporter to identify himself. As Clause 3 requires that journalists identify themselves and who they are representing “when asked”, and the complainant had not asked, the journalist was not required to identify himself proactively. As such, there was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.

28. The complainant also said that he asked the reporter to stop watching him and to leave him alone. The complainant accepted that the reporter may not have heard him as he did not respond. The publication said that the journalist had not heard any comments made by the complainant. On balance the Committee considered that it was likely the reporter had not heard the complainant’s request, particularly given the request had been made while the journalist was walking ahead of the complainant. It also noted that the request was not a specific actionable request to desist from a certain action. On balance, the Committee did not consider that this represented harassment. There was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.

29. The Committee next turned to the complainant’s concerns raised under Clause 1. Firstly, it considered the publication of the complainant’s previous address. It noted that the complainant had moved house following the court hearing the article reported on. However, the article had accurately recorded the address that was given for the complainant during the court proceedings which the article reported on – regardless of whether he had since moved home, the article was an accurate record of the court hearing on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

30. The complainant said that the article’s references to his parents included in the article were irrelevant and suggested they had known of his actions. The Committee noted that details concerning his parents were heard at court and that newspapers are entitled to select which information they publish provided this does not breach the Code. Including details about his parents that were heard at court did not make the article inaccurate. The Committee also noted that the article did not state at any point that his parents were aware of his actions prior to his arrest. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

31. The complainant said the article inaccurately said he had “returned with his mother" to his house, and that this had not been heard at court. The newspaper was able to show that it had taken care over this reference by providing notes taken at court which said “[d]uring the search the accused and his mother returned home”. The Committee noted that the article’s reference did not appear to differ, in any substantive sense, from what was heard in court: regardless of whether they returned together or separately, it was not in dispute that the court heard that the complainant’s mother had returned during the search and had been present for at least some of the search. Therefore, the Committee was satisfied that care had been taken over this claim and that it was not significantly inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

32. Regarding the disputed description of the examples found on the complainant’s device, the Committee noted that the newspaper had provided the reporter’s notes which showed they had taken care to accurately record the examples the Prosecutor Fiscal had given at court as well as the number of images and videos. Further the complainant did not explain how the references were inaccurate or provide an alternative figure. For this reason, the Committee did not consider the article was inaccurate on this point and there was no breach of Clause 1.

33. The Committee next considered the photograph of the complainant which he said breached Clause 2. It noted that this photograph had appeared on a website and was therefore in the public domain. It further noted that the image simply depicted the complainant’s likeness and did not show him doing anything which might be considered private. As such the Committee did not consider the image of the complainant intruded into his expectation of privacy. The Committee also found that, where there was no expectation of privacy over the photograph, the publication was not required to seek the complainant’s consent to publish the photograph. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

34. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 06/11/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/03/2024