Ipso censures Daily Record for a double breach of the editors' code
|
Version 0 of 1. A man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) about newspaper coverage of a court case in which a woman was acquitted of sexually assaulting him. His complaints about three Scottish titles - The Herald, The Scotsman and the Edinburgh Evening News - were not upheld. But Ipso decided that a fourth paper, the Daily Record, had been guilty of two breaches of the editors’ code of practice. The man complained that the Record’s report named him and, in so doing, caused him significant upset. He considered it humiliating that his family and friends had found out about the incident through the paper’s article. He cited clause 11 of the editors’ code which states: “The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.” The complainant also said that the publication of his name revealed private information about him, namely that he considered himself to be a victim of sexual assault. It was alleged that a woman had rubbed her breasts against him during a party, which he regarded as a sexual assault, as did the police who charged her. He therefore said the article also breached his privacy under clause 3 of the code. In its response to Ipso, the Record acknowledged that it was usual practice in Scotland not to name alleged victims of sexual offences. However, unlike elsewhere in the UK, there was no specific provision in Scottish law which granted automatic anonymity to alleged victims of sexual assault. A judge had the power to make such an order but did not make one in this case. The paper argued that it was legally free to publish the man’s name. It further pointed out that the judge had remarked that it was hard to understand why the crown had pursued the case. Those comments by the judge provided the “adequate justification” referred to in the code. But Ipso’s complaints committee did not accept the Record’s argument. It decided that “the protection of the identities of people who make allegations of sexual assault is of great importance to society” because “it is essential in ensuring that other victims are not dissuaded from reporting sexual offences to the police for fear of unwanted publicity.” Although the Record had been legally free to name the complainant, it said, “the code sets out a more stringent test than the law in that, regardless of the legal position, publications may not name victims of sexual assault unless there is ‘adequate justification’ to do so. “This justification must be a compelling one in order to outweigh the general public interest in preserving victims’ anonymity.” So it upheld both the complaints about his being identified and about the intrusion into his privacy. The Record was therefore required to publish the committee’s ruling. Ipso rejected the man’s complaints about the other three papers because they did not name him and the committee did not believe the details they published were sufficient for people to identify him. Comment: On balance, I agree with Ipso’s finding, but I find myself somewhat in sympathy with the Record. The first part of clause 11 is specific: “The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification...” That’s unequivocal. But the latter part states: “... unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.” Given that the paper was legally free to identify the man, it hinges on that “adequate justification” phrase. I can see why the paper thought the judge’s remarks about the failing of the prosecutor provided it with justification. Sure, it could still have carried the report without identifying the man (as the other three papers did). But it is a moot point whether its interpretation of “adequate justification” was entirely without merit. Of course, once the man was identified, it followed that his privacy had been compromised. There is a further matter. In his complaint to Ipso the man mentioned that the police had assured him he would not be identified by the media. If so, surely the police and/or the prosecutor should have informed the judge they had given such an assurance. And should they also not have made a statement in court so that reporters were aware of that promise, not least because it is not the police’s right to decide what a paper can, or cannot, publish? The Record was wrong, but not as wrong as might be suggested by a double breach of the code. Source: Ipso Record ruling |