October, November & December 2000

Adjudication of a complaint against the Sunday People, Daily Mail, Leamington Spa & Warwick Courier

Complaints under Clauses 1, 3 & 4:

Miss Corinne Tindall of Coventry complained that an article and photograph published in the Sunday People on 11 June 2000 headlined “Scheming girlfriend STOLE my sperm to get herself pregnant” was inaccurate and intruded into the private lives of her and her daughter in breach of Clauses 1 (Accuracy) and 3 (Privacy), and that she had been harassed in breach of Clause 4 (Harassment).

Miss Tindall also complained that an article published in the Leamington Spa and Warwick Courier on 16 June headlined “My £86 000 bill for one night of passion”, and an article and photograph published in the Daily Mail on 17 June 2000 headlined “A conception by deception”, were inaccurate and intruded into the private lives of her and her daughter in breach of Clauses 1 (Accuracy) and 3 (Privacy).

The complaints were not upheld:
The Sunday People and Daily Mail articles took the form of interviews with the father of the complainant’s child, Jonathan Evans.

Referring to a court decision which ruled that he must make maintenance payments to his child, Mr Evans described the unconventional circumstances of her alleged conception and his feelings towards the complainant and their daughter.

The articles published the child’s birth certificate, and part of a letter from the complainant, which admitted that she had attempted to inseminate herself with the contents of a used condom.

The Leamington Spa and Warwick Courier article reported the facts of the case and Mr Evans’ allegations in a news item.

The complainant stated that the photograph showing her pushing a pram outside her house had been intrusive. Publication of her daughter’s full name and details of legal proceedings held in chambers ought not to have been made public, and had intruded into her daughter’s private life. Mr Evans had not “always used a condom” and had apparently admitted as much in court, and their relationship had not been of a casual nature. The complainant had felt harassed by a journalist’s approaches towards herself and her parents, which had tried to ‘panic’ her into commenting on the article.

The newspapers pointed out that the eighteen-month-old child had not been interviewed or photographed. A birth certificate is a public document, which newspapers are entitled to publish. The main point of the story was that Mr Evans had worn a condom on the occasion of the alleged conception, and so it was not misleading to state that he practised safe sex. The Sunday People denied allegations of harassment and invasion of privacy.

A reporter had approached the complainant in order to seek her comments, and left a business card in case she changed her mind. Throughout the conversation the complainant appeared intrigued to discover how much the reporter knew. The photograph had been taken from public property.

The complainant maintained that publication of her daughter’s identity was not in the public interest. The Child Support Agency had written to the Sunday People prior to publication indicating their strong disapproval of an article that would reveal details about confidential and ongoing proceedings of a family nature.

Reporters had waited outside the complainant’s family home, and tried to obtain statements from both her and her father. On both occasions the reporters were told that no statement would be made.

Decision: Rejected

Reasons:

The Commission turned first to the complaint of inaccuracy and noted the concern that the apparent circumstances of the conception, which according to the complainant had been described in court as “highly unlikely”, had been presented as fact. However, the Commission noted the newspapers’ assertion that the complainant’s letter to Mr Evans had admitted attempting artificial insemination in the manner alleged, and considered that the reporting of these claims had been presented clearly as Mr Evans’ commentary on the matter, which was in accordance with the terms of the Code.

It was clear to the Commission that the apparent manner in which the child was conceived raised matters of considerable public interest and had formed the basis of Mr Evans’ attempts to challenge payment of maintenance in highly unusual circumstances.

The Commission could not therefore consider that in publishing his views of the matter the newspapers had intruded into the complainant’s private life without justification. Regarding the taking and publication of the photograph of the complainant, the Commission did not consider that one could reasonably expect privacy under the terms of the Code in a front garden open to a public highway, and as a consequence, did not believe that any breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) had been established as it related to the complainant herself.

Regarding the complaint of harassment the Commission did not consider that the single approach to the complainant from a journalist could reasonably be considered a breach of Clause 4 (Harassment).

The Commission turned next to the question of the complainant’s child’s privacy and also considered this issue under Clause 3 of the Code, which entitles everyone to respect for their private lives – including small children. The Sunday People and Daily Mail articles, written clearly as Mr Evans’ version of events, had published information about the complainant’s child.

This included the child’s full name, the letter written by the complainant to Mr Evans describing how she believed she had impregnated herself and a copy of the child’s birth certificate. The Leamington Spa and Warwick Courier had published the court’s decision and referred to the complainant’s admission to Mr Evans.

The circumstances surrounding the conception were the burden of Mr Evans’ dispute with the complainant and the Commission considered that they related more to the alleged behaviour of the complainant rather than the private life of the child.

Indeed, it would have been difficult for Mr Evans to have put his side of the story had these details been omitted and unrealistic to have expected the newspaper to do so.

With regard to the publication of the child’s name, the Commission would not normally consider that the identification by name of somebody was inherently intrusive, and in this case noted that there were no details that could reasonably be held to concern the child’s own private life. Similarly, the publication of the birth certificate – a public document – did not contain any further significant details about the child other than those expressed elsewhere in the article.

It was not for the Commission to take account of any putative future impact on the child caused by publication of her father’s comments as she grows up.

However, it wished to warn that although the content of the articles had not raised any breach of Clause 3 at this stage, the child would soon reach an age whereby such articles might, in certain circumstances, damage her welfare.

Newspapers had not been given carte blanche to repeat the apparent circumstances of the child’s conception, publication of which might prove detrimental to the child’s interests in breach of Clause 6 (Children) once she reached school age.

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index