An evening newspaper has been cleared over claims of inaccuracy and breaching privacy guidelines in its coverage of a woman jailed for stealing thousands of pounds.

In April this year the Derby Evening Telegraph published two articles on the case of Jane Needham, the first headlined “Woman is jailed for theft of firm’s £68,000″ and the second headlined “Thief’s shock after ruling”.

Following their publication the woman’s partner, Mr R A Preece of Chesterfield, complained that the first article had contained inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) and included a photograph which intruded into his partner’s privacy in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice.

He told the Press Complaints Commission that the article inaccurately stated that she had taken “up to £68,000″ from her former company and had accumulated debts of £29,000, and that the figures given in court had been slightly smaller.

He also objected to his address being published, because this was where Jane had lived at the time of the trial rather than where she lived when the offences were committed, and he also claimed that by publishing a photograph of her which had been taken at an office Christmas party, her privacy had been breached.

The PCC rejected his claims, and also found no breach of Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime) after the Evening Telegraph published a clarification regarding the woman’s address.

This named the complainant and published his partial address, which he said he had not given consent for and as a result he had been identified as a friend of someone convicted of crime.

In reply to the claims the Evening Telegraph said that its reporter had attended the court hearing and had a note which confirmed the broad accuracy of the figures for the amount stolen and the amount of debt.

It also said the complainant’s address was given in court, which is why it had been used, and that the follow-up article was a gesture of goodwill and the complainant had not said that he did not want to be named.

It said that the photograph of the woman had been provided by one of her former colleagues and was genuinely relevant as it helped to identify a woman who had been convicted of serious offences.

In coming to its decision, the PCC said it was not misleading to publish the complainant’s address as the woman was living there at the time of the trial, and the address had been referred to in court and in court papers. The article did not say she was living there when the offences were committed.

It added that any discrepancies in the theft and debt figures were not so significant as to mislead readers.

With regard to the clarification, the PCC said complainant had contacted the newspaper himself and had not apparently specifically said that he did not want to be identified. It was also a matter of fact that the woman was his partner and lived at his house.

He also appeared to be representing her in a complaint to the newspaper about the original article, and in these circumstances it said the complainant was genuinely relevant to the second story.

Finally, it said the paper had been free to publish the photograph because it had not been taken surreptitiously by the newspaper when she was in a private place, but was a posed shot that had been supplied to the paper by the person who owned it.

It added that the photograph conveyed no private information about the complainant, and was an innocuous photograph that simply illustrated what she looked like.

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index