AddThis SmartLayers

Complaint upheld against regional daily for identifying child

A complaint against a regional daily, whose court report identified the defendant’s child, has been upheld by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

The mother of the child complained to IPSO under Clause 3 (Privacy) of the editor’s code about an article in the Chester edition of The Leader which covered her partner’s conviction for charges over an incident in which the child’s safety had been placed at risk.

The story named the complainant’s partner and included his partial address, noted his relationship to the child concerned, and gave an account of the circumstances, including the state in which the child had been found by police.

Reporting restrictions had been imposed by the court, but The Leader said it had been unaware of this prior to publication.

Leader

It added that there had been no reference to it at the hearing or mention of it in court documents on the day.

However, the newspaper accepted its reporter should have made a greater effort to establish whether restrictions were in place.

Since the article’s publication in October other parents had asked the complainant about the incident in front of her child, causing significant distress, and she was worried about potential further consequences.

The newspaper apologised to her and offered to make a donation to a children’s charity of her choice by way of recompence.

The woman’s complaint was upheld by the committee and The Leader was ordered to publish the full wording of its adjudication under the headline ‘IPSO complaint upheld’ on page two of the newspaper, the same page on which the original story appeared.

The IPSO ruling states: “The article under complaint had not named the complainant’s child, but it had plainly identified the child by connection to the named man.

“In general, IPSO upholds the right to report matters heard in open court, both because of the general interest in open justice and because they have entered the public domain through the proceedings.

“In this instance, however, the existence of a reporting restriction meant that the complainant’s child had a reasonable expectation that this material – which related to a distressing incident that raised significant safety concerns – would not be published to the wider public.

“In addition, as a consequence of the decision taken by the court, the child’s identity was not likely to enter the public domain otherwise.

“The newspaper’s publication of the material in these circumstances constituted an unjustified intrusion into the child’s private life, and a breach of Clause 3 of the Code.”