06368-24 Sidhu v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Luna Sidhu complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Reluctant lawyer who championed diversity”, published on 23 November 2023.

2. The article was a profile of a barrister who had been accused of professional misconduct, and whose case was due to be heard at a disciplinary tribunal. The complainant was married to the barrister. The article included the complainant’s name; her place of work; and the number and gender of the couple’s children.

3. The article also appeared online under the headline, “Who is Jo Sidhu? The diversity champion accused of targeting aspiring lawyers”.

4. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 2 because her name, occupation, and place of work had been included gratuitously. She said that – while the misconduct allegations against her husband had been covered widely – the article under complaint was the only one which mentioned her name, occupation, or place of work.

5. The complainant also said the publication had breached Clause 3. She said a journalist acting on behalf of the publication had tried to contact her via social media, and when she had ignored the message, they had visited her home. She said this visit had been distressing to her daughter, who answered the door. She said her husband asked the reporter to leave, which they did.

6. The complainant also said there had been a breach of Clause 3 because, as a result of the article’s publication, members of the public had sent “malicious” emails about the case to her workplace.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It said the Clause takes into consideration the extent to which information has entered the public domain prior to publication when considering if it is private. It said information about the fact the complainant was married to the barrister appeared in an article from 2012 which said: “he lives in [named location] with his wife Luna.” The 2012 article also said how many children the couple shared, as well as the children’s gender. The publication also noted that a website included had the complainant’s name, occupation, and place of work – and therefore these three pieces of information were not private. Additionally, the newspaper provided the complainant’s husband’s Wikipedia page, which named the complainant and stated her and her husband were married.

8. The publication also disputed that there had been a breach of Clause 3. It said one message – which the complainant did not respond to - and a single approach to the complainant’s home did not amount to harassment. It said the Code makes clear that if reporters are asked to desist from questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals, they must do so, and its reporters had complied with this.

9. The publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 3 regarding the emails sent to the complainant’s workplace by members of the public. It said while it appreciated this had been distressing, this was not the fault of its reporters.

10. The complainant disputed the publication’s argument regarding her privacy. She said the 2012 article provided by the publication only included her first name and did not include her occupation. She also said that, while her occupation and her workplace were published on the webpage the newspaper had provided, it did not link her to her husband and the allegations against him. She also said the Wikipedia page cited the article under complaint as a source for its mention of her and her husband’s relationship.

11. The complainant said the harassment she had received from members of the publication and the malicious messages sent to her employer were a direct consequence of the article.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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

12. The complainant had expressed concern that the article included her name, job title, place of work, marital status, and number of children in a report about misconduct proceedings being brought against her husband. However, the Committee did not consider this to be information in respect of which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy: an individual’s marital status (including to whom they are married) or the fact that they have children is generally not private information – and, as was the case in this instance, may already be in the public domain - and details about an individual’s job do not relate to their private or family life. While the Committee recognised the complainant considered that the publication of this information in a report about allegations being made against her husband was gratuitous, it nevertheless did not amount to an intrusion into her private or family life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

13. It is standard practice for journalists attempting to interview people or verify their stories to approach individuals at their homes; this can ensure a publication fulfils its obligation to take care over the accuracy of the information it publishes. It was not in dispute that the complainant had not requested the publication desist from contacting her prior to the visit, nor that the reporter left when asked. In these circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 3.

14. The complainant had also expressed concerns that the newspaper had breached the Code, as members of the public – after reading the article – had sent her and her workplace harassing messages. While the Committee was sorry to hear of any distress caused by these messages, the terms of Clause 3 do not apply to people who are not working for newspapers. Where the complainant’s concerns related to the behaviour of the public rather than press, there was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.

Conclusions

15. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 28/11/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/03/2025