AddThis SmartLayers

Innocent man wins payout over police picture blunder

Police have made a “substantial” compensation pay-out after releasing an innocent man’s photograph in a press release about a rapist.

As reported by HTFP last October, the Oxford Mail published an image of 33-year-old Daniel Rodriguez-Lay in a story about violent sex offender Daniel Rodriguez, 38.

The image was supplied to the paper by Thames Valley police and Mr Rodriguez-Lay, from Bristol, later launched a defamation case against the force.

Now his solicitor has disclosed that an out-of-court settlement has been reached and a compensation payout agreed.

The error occurred after the Mail reported that Rodriguez, from Kidlington, near Oxford, had admitted four firearms offences, having previously admitted three counts of rape and one of sexual assault.

The newspaper also apologised to Mr Rodriguez-Lay for the error although it published the photograph in good faith.

Mr Rodriguez-Lay said: “The first thing I knew about this was when I started receiving calls and text messages from my family and friends back in Oxford. They were asking what I had done.

“They thought I was a rapist. I was sickened by what that man had done and that people thought it was me.”

His solicitor Kevin Donoghue said: “The fact that the press reports were local to Daniel’s family and friends, and described such brutal, grotesque, and deeply immoral crimes, means that the damage to my client’s reputation and the distress, hurt, and humiliation he suffered were significant.

“My client has received an apology from the police and settled his claim out-of-court for substantial compensation. By publicising the award he hopes to ensure that anyone who saw the original reports is now properly informed.”

A police spokesman said: “Thames Valley Police is sorry for the error we made in incorrectly releasing a photograph of Mr Rodriguez-Lay. We immediately apologised to Mr Rodriguez-Lay and subsequently followed this up in writing.

“We are pleased that this matter has now been fully resolved for him. The force would like to apologise for any distress caused by this error and reassure the public that measures have been taken to mitigate against the possibility of this happening again.”

10 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • April 22, 2014 at 8:00 am
    Permalink

    And to think there’s newspaper owners who think it’s a good idea to allow police to publish directly on to newspaper websites…..

    Who’ll be liable for the payout when this eventually happens there?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • April 22, 2014 at 9:31 am
    Permalink

    Raises some interesting points. Surely this man has a case against the Oxford Mail although it could put together a fairly convincing counter argument. In fact, did the police ever publish the picture or was the publication carried out by the newspaper alone? If a picture agency had supplied a duff picture would it be hit with a libel action? I doubt it. I should be interested to read what the HTFP lawyer thinks.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • April 22, 2014 at 11:14 am
    Permalink

    Would have thought the paper had a privilege defence with a pic from the police press office as long as they removed it promptly once they were aware of the error. Agency-supplied pic might be different unless the agency obtained the pic from the police officially to begin with.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • April 22, 2014 at 12:04 pm
    Permalink

    Casper is definitely right – the picture would carry qualified privilege. A cautionary tale though.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • April 22, 2014 at 12:30 pm
    Permalink

    I cannot see how innocent Daniel Rodriguez-Lay would have a case against the Oxford Mail.

    The photo was supplied by the police and published in good faith. However, these days newspapers rarely have a reporter in court covering cases leaving newsdesks having to rely on the police to supply the correct photo.

    It also calls into question the latest crazy idea by some publishing groups to allow the police direct access to their publications’ websites.

    What I would like to know is, how did Thames Valley Police get the wrong photo in the first place?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • April 22, 2014 at 1:12 pm
    Permalink

    …and will the end result be that police forces consider it not worthwhile issuing pictures to the media?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • April 22, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    Permalink

    It is unclear whether this story followed a court case. A court report would enjoy privilege but I doubt a picture would form part of the case. I cannot see how a police press release could enjoy qualified privilege. Pretty sure anybody else’s press release would have little protection. Interesting debate.
    If I collected and published a picture of an “evil beast” from his best mate and then it turned out the picture was not said Mr E Beast I should be pleasantly if there was an argument for qualified privilege. I think the point about the dangers of throwing open newspaper websites to the police if a very good one. Thanks for opinions offered so far.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • April 22, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    Permalink

    Press releases from bodies such as police and council have QP:

    Qualified Privilege defence applies to fair and accurate reports of:-

    1) Debates held in public at any legislature in the world

    2) Court proceedings held in public anywhere in the world

    3) Public meetings held in the European Union

    4) The meetings of councils, their committees and sub-committees held in public in the UK

    5) Material – official reports – published by or on the authority of a government or legislature anywhere in the world

    6) Statements issued for the public by government departments, councils, the police and other governmental agencies in the EU.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • April 22, 2014 at 4:31 pm
    Permalink

    In this case the photo was given by the police which held them ultimately responsible. I remember when we would have a reporter inside the court and a photographer outside. From information given by the reporter the photographer would grab his shot and it would be used. A huge problem when a description of one man wearing street uniform could apply to several.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • April 27, 2014 at 4:42 pm
    Permalink

    Relying on police press releases is a dodgy game for court? They usually contain no mitigation or defence case, meaning they are not fair or balanced, as required by law. Luckily most defendants don’t know the law and papers get away with this sloppy and lazy attitude. how many papers send reporters to court? Pitifully few.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)