AddThis SmartLayers

Editor: We were wrong to name assault victim

The editor of a regional daily has admitted his title was wrong to name the victim of a care home assault.

In August the Northern Echo covered a trial held at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates Court which led to the conviction of a care worker who abused a mentally-handicapped patient.

The newspaper named the 23-year-old victim, who suffers from severe learning difficulties and has a mental age of seven or eight.

Her mother complained to the Press Complaints Commission and although editor Peter Barron argued there was no breach of the Editor’s Code, he has now admitted the paper should not have named her.

Peter wrote on his blog:  “The identification of innocent third parties in court cases has been a long-running concern of editors…too often, victims and witnesses get caught in the publicity crossfire.

“This week, I had a conversation with a caring mother who made me realise just how careful newspapers have to be – and reaffirmed my view that the courts also have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable.”

Peter said the paper’s trial report had gone into great detail about the victim’s circumstances and state of health.

He said the Echo had not only named the victim but reported that she had severe learning difficulties, epilepsy and a mental age of a seven or eight-year-old.

Added Peter:  “With the benefit of hindsight, I believe we were wrong to do so, even though we did not break any law, or contravene the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct.

“It caused additional distress and we should have been more considerate about the victim’s feelings and those of her family. We should have named the guilty care worker, but not the young disabled woman she assaulted.”

“The mother of the victim took her complaint to the PCC and my response was that we had not breached its code of conduct because there is nothing in it which refers to innocent third parties in court.

“I accepted, however, that we had a moral obligation to have been more careful. I agreed to write this piece, explaining the wider issue facing the criminal justice system, and apologising for our part in adding to the distress.”

The family has now withdrawn its complaint to the PCC and Peter has arranged for a donation to be made to a charity of their choice.

The Echo removed the victim’s details from the paper’s website immediately following the mother’s initial complaint.

Added Peter:  “There is a responsibility on newspapers to be more careful, but there is also a duty of care which applies to the courts, which have the power to issue orders protecting the anonymity of people in court.

“Often, I believe courts are guilty of issuing inappropriate banning orders. But, in my view, this case was an example where an order would have been justified and not contested.”

4 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • December 23, 2011 at 10:15 am
    Permalink

    The problem is, where do you draw the line? Does this mean the Echo is not going to be identifying witnesses and victims in court cases from now on?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • December 23, 2011 at 10:27 am
    Permalink

    Why does the court have to ban anything? Is Mr Barron implying that unless they have a legal order holding them back, editors can’t be trusted to exercise judgement? How odd.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • December 23, 2011 at 12:25 pm
    Permalink

    After 20 years in the business at all levels, I have come to the conclusion that newspapers have a lot to answer for when it comes to justice …

    1 Witnesses reluctant to come forward for dear of being named
    2 Innocent people have their lives destroyed by being named in public at the arrest stage, often by leaks from the police and often by editors failing to think clearly

    The attitude seems to be … we’ll publish anything we can get away with and to hell with the people involved. (The same attitude, by the way, which sees news conferences genuinely delighted at tragedy and misfortune)

    I find it hardly any wonder that people are deserting some newspapers.

    PS And the argument that ‘we treat everyone the same’ when it comes to court is so ludicrous it is hardly worth discussing yet this is what is always trotted out if an individual, fearful for their safety, calls in to request some restraint. The fact is, editors pick and choose cases so everyone is not treated the same.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • December 23, 2011 at 2:29 pm
    Permalink

    At least Peter Barron has the guts to own up to his mistake and put his name to it, unlike some of the ill-informed ingrates on this and the other sites.
    Well done Peter.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)