The press regulator is review its guidelines after a case in which a website story at the centre of a complaint was deleted.
William Docherty complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that regional news website Get West London had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article which reported his brother Peter Docherty had been killed after being hit by a train.
The story had reported concerns that a decision to close a mental health centre had contributed to Mr Docherty taking his own life, but the complainant said he was concerned the website had failed to establish the facts and there was no evidence his brother had committed suicide.
He further added the article, published on 13 January, had been intrusive and distressing to his family.
Get West London said that it had believed the complainant’s brother had committed suicide because of the circumstances of the death, the nature of the injuries and the investigations of its staff.
Its reporter had spoken to friends of Mr Docherty at the mental health centre, local councillors and the local MP, who all said that he had committed suicide.
Additionally, supporters of the centre held a public vigil for Mr Docherty, displaying banners which said ‘How many more suicides?’.
A clarification making clear the family’s concerns was published on the website three days later, but the whole story was then taken down at the complainant’s request after he made clear he was unhappy with this.
Mr Docherty subsequently complained to IPSO, but as the original article had been overwritten and then deleted, neither the complainant nor the newspaper was able to provide a copy of the original text to the watchdog.
Because of this, the IPSO committee was unable to evaluate whether or not the article had failed to distinguish comment and conjecture from fact.
The regulator says it is now considering what requirements it might make of publishers to ensure that it is able to properly consider complaints in such circumstances in the future.
The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
My in-house rule was that only a coroner’s inquest could ascertain whether a death was suicide. Any media outlet that makes assumptions is playing a dangerous game.
Report this comment
It is not the media’s job to publish speculation about the cause of death. Just the facts. There is far too much speculation in news reporting generally, especially when radio and TV pick up agency or paper copy and run with it without checking facts. Competition can be a bad thing in the media and unsubstantiated rumour is useless as news.
Report this comment
“But the MP said it was suicide”.
Not really a good source let’s be honest
Report this comment