IPSO upholds Mohammed Ahmed complaint against Mail

FOLLOWING an article published in the Daily Mail on 1 June 2017 headlined “While liberal hand wringers made empty pledges to take in a refugee, one acclaimed writer quietly did so – only to have her kindness betrayed”, Mohammed Ahmed complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail had breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complaint was upheld and IPSO has required the Daily Mail to publish this adjudication.

The article reported that a journalist had written a first-hand account, published in The Sunday Times, of her experience while the complainant, who was an asylum seeker at the time, was living as a guest in her house. The article included the complainant’s first name and an unpixelated photograph of him.

The article reported various details about the complainant’s background, including his journey to the UK, and went on to report a number of incidents recounted in The Sunday Times article, which The Sunday Times journalist described as “warning signs” about the complainant. The Sunday Times journalist said that she had discovered pornographic images on her computer, left there by the complainant. The nature of these images was described in the article. She had also said that, while living with her, the complainant had suffered from various illnesses, and had regularly attended the Accident and Emergency department at a hospital. The article included details of the illnesses, and reported that the journalist had given him a “lecture about not abusing the NHS”. She also wrote that the complainant had asked her “where he could find the nearest park, as he’d been told that London parks were the best place to buy marijuana”.

The complainant expressed concern that he had become the subject of a story in a national newspaper, which he considered to be an intrusion into his privacy. He had not consented to the publication of The Sunday Times article, and did not believe that there was any justification for its re-publication.

The newspaper said that the matters complained of had already been placed in the public domain when the journalist’s account was published by another newspaper which had a readership of two million people. It said that the article had been derived entirely from this first-person account and that the article was clearly attributed as such. The journalist was entitled to share her story, pursuant to her right to freedom of expression, and it noted her reputation for probity and honesty. The newspaper said that in any event, the information published was not of an intrinsically private nature and was in the public interest.

IPSO’s Complaints Committee said that the newspaper was entitled to comment on the journalist’s firsthand account of her experiences, but rejected the newspaper’s position that publication of the article was justified as the information had been published by another newspaper, with a large number of readers, and so was already in the public domain.

The article included extensive information about the complainant, relating to: his family and personal relationships; his domestic arrangements; his financial circumstances; his journey to the UK; his asylum application; his relationships and interactions with the journalist, including an argument they had had; his health; his drug use; and allegations about the downloading of private, sexual material on The Sunday Times journalist’s computer. These details were used to create a detailed and intimate portrait of the complainant, and his life. The complainant was clearly identified in the article, which included his first name and unpixelated photograph. The complainant was not a public figure, and had not disclosed any of this information publicly, or consented to its publication. The Sunday Times article had made clear that he had been upset at the idea of being the focus of coverage in a national newspaper.

The Public Interest section of the Code makes clear that the regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain. However, the simple fact that information has previously been published in another publication does not relieve editors of the duty of considering whether material it intends to publish complies with the terms of the Code. The republication of the information, given the extent of the detail, and the fact that no steps were taken to obscure the complainant’s identity, represented an intrusion into his private life. The Committee recognised that the newspaper was reporting on material of significant public interest, but the fact that this material had been published by another newspaper was not sufficient to justify the extent of information reported about the complainant, and the resulting intrusion into his private life. The journalist’s right to freedom of expression did not outweigh the complainant’s right to privacy in this instance. There was a breach of Clause 2.