A weekly newspaper has been rapped after publishing excessive details about the method of suicide used by a local man.
A woman complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article published in the Wiltshire Gazette and Herald on 6 September contained excessive details of a suicide, in breach of Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The article contained the name of the gas the man had used, information about how it had been obtained and the manner in which it had been inhaled.
The PCC has ruled that the newspaper breached Clause 5 (ii) of the Code, which was introduced in 2006 to address concerns that press reporting can contribute to copycat suicides.
The complainant said that the detail included was explicit and technical, and had caused distress to the man’s family and friends.
In responding to the complaint, the newspaper said that it had tried to be sensitive to the family’s wishes in its reporting and at their request had not published a story at the time of the death.
It said the details it published had been placed in the public domain through the inquest and their omission would have prevented it from fully explaining the coroner’s verdict.
In its adjudication, the Commission made it clear that newspapers are entitled to report inquests in cases of suicide but stressed that they must take care to limit the level of detail.
Charlotte Dewar, head of complaints and pre-publication services, said: “The Code’s requirement to avoid excessive detail exists to minimise the risk of imitative suicides.
“The Commission works hard to promote responsible reporting of suicide. Today’s ruling is a reminder of the high standard the Commission expects of editors in this area.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Another. Will not be long before papers do not bother with inquests.
I know where I work you have to approach the family at/after the inquest and if they do not wish to speak then we will not use it as a lead.
Editors are scared of exactly this happening.
Report this comment
Sounds like they crossed a line to me.
You could have said the type of gas without the name or given the name without explaining where it was obtained or the method of inhalation.
Definitely excessive detail.
Report this comment
An outdated and meaningless ruling in the Internet era.
Report this comment
Seriously, who in the local press doesn’t know this by now?
Report this comment
Ridiculous.
The headline to this story should be: ‘Public hearings shouldn’t be relayed to public, says watchdog’.
The whole point of an inquest is that it is public information. Any member of public can walk into an inquest and listen to it. Imagine this inquest was really busy. The public gallery was jammed. What the PCC is saying with this ruling is that any member of the public who couldn’t get into the inquest because it was too busy should be prevented from knowing what other members of the public inside the room were told.
This ruling is absurd. It’s a public hearing, no different to a court case or a council meeting. Newspapers should be able to publish verbatim transcripts if they want to.
Absolutely absurd.
Report this comment
Are they going to change the rules of reporting to “fair but not too accurate”?
Report this comment
House Rules – it sounds like you work at a newspaper where your editor (or some other senior bod that made this rule) needs to grow a pair.
Report this comment
To be fair, the point of this clause of the PCC is both to protect the family from intrusion into grief and shock and to prevent copy-cat suicides. It should be well known to reporters and editors that reporting these kinds of details is likely to be in breach of the code.
It doesn’t diminish the story by omitting the type of gas or how it was inhaled in this particular story. And if there is a need to report a more detailed account of the death there is a public interest exception to the rule. In this case it’s hard to see what public interest there is in mentioning the type of gas and how it was inhaled, unless the paper sought to do a wider piece on the dangers of the gas.
It seems to me to be a case of the reporter not knowing their PCC code well enough and it slipping through the net.
Completely agree about it being ridiculous to ask people for permission to cover inquests, though. If you know your PCC code and the requirements of absolute and qualifed privilege you have nothing to fear from reporting them.
Report this comment
It must have come as a complete shock to the family to learn that their relative was dead at all.
How insensitive of the newspaper.
Report this comment