AddThis SmartLayers

Editor rapped as watchdog finds report details could have identified sex victim

A newspaper that carried a court story about a sexual assult published detail which may have led to identification of the victim, according to the press watchdog.

Victims of sex crimes have their identity protected by law and by reporting details which could lead to identification, the editor breached the Editors’ Code of Practice.

And now the Press Complaints Commission has reprimanded the editor of the Strathspey & Badenoch Herald after the victim’s mother complained about the level of detail included in the article.

The story included “superfluous” mention of a visible injury which her daughter had previously suffered.

She claimed that this, coupled with details of the time and place where her daughter had first met the man in question, would have led people in her small community to identify her.

The PCC upheld her complaint, and told the editor he could have taken greater care in publishing news of the conviction.

In its adjudication, the Commission conceded that the editor arguably had a difficult job to do in striking a balance between legitimate detail and what was likely to contribute to identification.

But it said that “greater care could have been taken” by missing out the reference to the injury altogether.

The newspaper did not believe that any detail in the article would have led to the identification of the girl.

It stuck to the law, and did not include her name, address or school, and the town in which the incidents took place – which was not her home – was a busy holiday resort with hundreds of thousands of visitors every year.

It argued that the article was a fair and accurate account of court proceedings, and said the complainant had indicated that no third party had identified her daughter as a result.

The PCC said that while the information about the girl’s injury may have seemed insignificant to some, it was a superfluous but specific detail which could have been sufficient to identify her, or confirm the suspicions of those who already knew something about the case.

It found the paper had breached Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) of the Code of Practice, and in doing so had also breached Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) and Clause 6 (Children) as the content of the article would have had a considerable impact on the girl.