IPSO rules against Paisley Daily Express on court reporting

Following two articles published by the Paisley Daily Express in 2017, a man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Paisley Daily Express breached Clause 11 (victims of sexual assault) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

Clause 11 of the Code requires that 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 complaint was upheld as a breach of Clause 11, and the Paisley Daily Express was required to publish this adjudication as a remedy.

The articles reported that a man pleaded guilty to sex offences against a child, and that he had been given a jail sentence.

The complainant said that by including certain details from the court hearings, the publication had failed to protect the identity of the victim, on whose behalf he was complaining.

The newspaper said that in accordance with the principle of open justice, it is essential that the press are able to report on cases, such as the case subject to the complaint.

It said that to do so, it is necessary to include certain details to inform the public as to how the offences occurred.

It provided explanations as to why it did not believe that the details in the article were likely to contribute to the identification of the victim.

The newspaper said it had taken active steps to omit certain details from the articles, to reduce the possibility of the victim being identified.

IPSO’s Complaint s Committee made clear that the newspaper was entitled to report on this case, and to identify the defendant, in accordance with the principle of open justice.

However, Clause 11 of the Editors’ Code requires that, in doing so, it did not publish material likely to contribute to the identification of the victim.

The committee considered that the detail the articles contained about circumstances in which the defendant committed some of the offences could only reasonably be applied to a relatively narrow class of individuals.

When reported alongside the age of the victim, and the timeframes for the offences, these details, represented material which was likely to contribute to the identification of the victim.

The complaint was therefore upheld as a breach of Clause 11.