IPSO upholds complaint of harassment against Sunday Mail
Miranda Knight Brown complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Sunday Mail breached Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article headlined “Wife moves out to be near Rossi’s jail”, published on 2 April 2023. The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required the Sunday Mail to publish this adjudication to remedy the breach of the Code.
The article reported that the complainant – the wife of an “alleged rapist, who is facing extradition” – had moved address after her husband’s “latest bail bid was denied”. It reported that the complainant “was seen carrying bags out of the” property, and was accompanied by two photographs showing the complainant outside a building. The complainant said that the publication had breached the terms of Clause 3 by photographing her outside her home.
She said that the images had been taken in April 2023, after a notice had been circulated by IPSO on her behalf in January 2023. This notice requested that journalists not approach her or photograph her, as well as asking for newspapers to desist from approaching her home address.
The newspaper, she said, had ignored this clear request, and in doing so had made her feel harassed and intimidated.
IPSO found that, while notices do not prohibit the printing of future stories about an individual, nor act as indefinite bar on all future approaches, the complainant’s move did not constitute a development in the story of the criminal proceedings involving her husband.
In addition, while three months had passed since the original notice, this did not mean that the conditions which led to her making the request – the arrest of her husband, and the press interest that followed – had materially changed, or that the complainant’s request no longer applied.
On balance, where the publication had photographed the complainant despite the fact that she had made a request that journalists desist from photographing her, there was a breach of Clause 3 (ii) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.