Page 2 of 2

The couple also complained that the articles contained distorted and prejudicial material in breach of the clauses on accuracy and discrimination. They also claimed to have been harassed by reporters from the papers.

The PCC said: “The reports had sensationalised the suspected illness and the complainants had subsequently been the victims of a number of racially motivated crimes.

“The complainants maintained that two Evening Express reporters had sat outside their home on May 24 despite the fact that they had made clear that they did not wish to speak to the media.

“They had at no time commented on the matter to the press. Photographs of their residential complex had been taken, and after a press release was issued concerning vandalism to their property another reporter from the newspaper visited them on August 6.

“A Press and Journal reporter had entered the complainants’ group of flats and would not leave when asked. The mother lost her temper and eventually told the reporter that her son was ‘just fine’, but otherwise the complainants had not spoken about their son’s health. The newspaper had also visited on August 6 to examine graffiti on the flat.”

The complainants had also complained on behalf of their daughter, whose telephone number is the sole entry for her surname in the Aberdeen phone book, and whom various reporters had approached.

“She visited the Evening Express shop when she saw the article. An assistant telephoned the newspaper reporter, whose response to the complaint was “totally inappropriate”. There were further telephone calls, and other named and unnamed journalists visited her house, over a period of about a fortnight.

The reporter had been told upon ringing the intercom that the complainants had been advised to make no comment. A few pictures had been taken of the flat complex but were not published, and the journalists left immediately. A reporter who had spoken to the complainants’ daughter in the Evening Express shop had acted professionally under great provocation; that was the only incident when the newspaper had been in contact or had attempted to make contact with her. An incident of vandalism, which had been put into the public domain by the release, was followed up as a normal news story and the link to the complainants was not made by the news desk nor were they named in the subsequent report. The names of other suspected TB sufferers had not been published because they were not known at the time of publication.

The Evening Express denied harassing the complainant and utterly refuted the suggestion that the family had been discriminated against in any way.

The Press and Journal denied harassing the complainants and utterly refuted the suggestion that they had discriminated against the family in any way. It had arrived at the complainants’ flat to find the door open. The reporter introduced herself when the father came to the door – he asked her to leave and she did so immediately and no further approaches were made. The names of other suspected TB sufferers had not been published because they were not known at the time of publication.

The PCC said: “The complainants had clearly experienced a degree of unwanted attention both prior and subsequent to publication, and the Commission wished to express its concerns at the appalling racist crimes which had been described in the complainants’ submissions.

“However, it could not consider that the newspapers – which did not make reference to the boy’s race and indeed appeared to be unaware of his nationality – had published any information that could be said to be in breach of Clause 13 (discrimination).

“There was clearly a conflict of recollection in accounts of the approaches from a number of journalists. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Commission did not uphold the complaint under Clause 4, on harassment.

The Commission noted that the Evening Express had acknowledged contacting the complainants after being asked to desist, but this was six weeks later and after a further news story had come to light. This further approach did not constitute harassment under the terms of the Code.

And given that a published statement attributed to the complainants appeared to have been accurately taken from a press release issued on their behalf, and the articles had made clear that the child was suffering from suspected TB, the Commission did not consider that any breach of Clause 1, on accuracy, had been established.

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index