A weekly newspaper used excessive detail in its report on a man’s suicide, the press watchdog has ruled.
The Forester, based in the Gloucestershire town of Cinderford, has been rapped by the Independent Press Standards Organisation following a complaint by the man’s widow, Sarah Jones, over its report of an inquest into his death.
The inquest report described the location in which the man was found and specified the ligature which he had used to end his life by hanging, which Mrs Jones said was “excessive and insensitive”.
The newspaper claimed in response that there had been a specific public interest justification in reporting exactly what had happened to Mr Jones because it would dispel rumours within the community regarding how he had died.
However, IPSO found The Forester had not advanced a justification for specifying the ligature which Mr Jones had used, nor was there any justification in the article as to why this item had been specified.
Complaining under Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) and Clause 5 (Reporting Suicide) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Mrs Jones also said evidence given by her father at the inquest had been incorrectly attributed to her.
In response, The Forester said that the article did not contain excessive detail of the method of suicide used by Mr Jones, adding the detail published would not lead to simulative acts.
It said that a death by hanging normally implies some sort of ligature to have been used, and the report did not reveal how either of the ligatures had been secured or applied.
Adding there had been a public interest in reporting on the circumstances of Mr Jones’ death, the newspaper said that on the there had been an unprecedented number of emergency services personnel in attendance on the day, which drew public attention, and it received a number of calls from the public over the subsequent days asking what the incident was.
These calls had been prompted by rumours within the community, and it felt there was a specific public interest justification in reporting exactly what had happened to Mr Jones in order to dispel said rumours.
The Forester was unable to provide reporter’s notes of the inquest to clarify who had made the statement attributed to, but, after approaching a representative from a suicide support charity who had attended the inquest, clarified that Mrs Jones had quoted a statement from her father while giving evidence.
IPSO recognised that there is a public interest in newspapers reporting on inquest proceedings, but The Forester had not advanced a justification for specifying the ligature which Mr Jones had used, nor was there any justification in the article as to why this item had been specified.
The publication of the ligature which had been used was excessive and presented the possibility that it might lead to simulative acts.
The Committee were concerned by the misattribution error, particularly as it had occurred in an inquest report, and given the sensitivity of the subject matter.
However, the statement had formed part of Mrs Jones’s oral evidence, and while these words had originally been spoken by her father, there was no dispute that, save for the attribution, the evidence heard by the inquest had been reported accurately.
The complaint was upheld in part, 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
Absolutely ludicrous. Inquests are held in open court, meaning any member of the public who wants to sit in and listen is legally entitled to do so. It is madness to say that a member of the public who can’t attend an inquest, for whatever reason, should have access to less information than one who is able to attend. That is censorship, pure and simple. If it was heard in a public court, the public is entitled to hear it. The end.
Report this comment
“The Forester was unable to provide reporter’s notes of the inquest to clarify who had made the statement attributed to”.
Why not?
Report this comment
I was feeling quite sympathetic towards the Forester until I reached this bit: “…The Forester was unable to provide reporter’s notes of the inquest to clarify who had made the statement attributed to..” which is pretty inexcusable, really…
@TwisV Technically, you’re correct in that we can report anything said in open court but past experience has taught me we also have to show a degree of sensitivity.
A few years back my inquest report on a young man’s suicide included the fact (mentioned in open court, obviously) that he had hung himself with a dog lead.
Following publication I was confronted by an irate relative who proceeded to give me the full hair-dryer treatment – screaming in my face for at least five minutes – demanding to know why I’d included that detail.
It was a salutary lesson on the need for discretion at such hearings…
Report this comment
Why does it make it any worse that he did it with a dog lead, though? It’s just a fact. The family are going to be irate whatever you write. You have to balance the public’s right to know everything from the hearing against the likelihood that no matter how much or little you write, the family are going to be cheesed off.
If Hilda from 3 Example Road had come and sit in the inquest, which she’s legally entitled to do, she’d know he hung himself with a dog lead. if Bert from 5 Example Road was free to attend, but Hilda wasn’t, why should Bert be entitled to know facts that Hilda isn’t? Both have the same legal entitlement to know what was said.
I really do think that when we’re discussing public interest hearings from public courtrooms, it is unreasonable and fascistic for people to start censoring the reporting in case it upsets somebody. That’s a very slippery slope.
Report this comment
I agree with Karl. Imagine it was one of your loved ones? How would you want the story to be written? Try and use that as a ‘yard stick.’
Report this comment
Sorry FormerJourno, I can’t agree with Karl. Courtrooms are public hearings and as a reporter, you are there as an observer, not the judge and jury. If everytime you wrote a story, whether from court or not and mulled over what affect this would have on the people concerned no newspaper would ever meet its deadline. Yes, I agree experience should teach sensitivity but it should never be from a personal basis of what if the people involved were our loved ones. My weekly grounding was on papers where even the proprietor (yes we had them in those days) was not free from mention in his own columns should he transgress!
I learnt a lesson in my very early junior days that trying to help a concerned relative can often backfire. A worried mother who came into the office about her son who had sadly exposed himself in public was told not to worry it wouldn’t make more than a par anyway. Unortunately when the paper came out that single par was used as a filler – above the poor lad’s family business half-page ad. Suppose that is what is called Sod’s Law.
Report this comment
Sorry but those who are “sensitive” to the feelings of the bereaved are missing the point: A “court” whether it be a law court or a coroner’s court is a public place. Full stop Stop being snowflakes. Next thing you know certain facts will be withheld because it might upset relatives. If that happens then stories such as those involving mass murderer Shipman etc will never be uncovered. The rough goes with the smooth.
Report this comment
Karl Korchack: Why should the relative be screaming blue murder because a “dog lead” was mentioned. What the relative really meant was: I don’t want this story written.
Report this comment
Does anyone know who wrote the original article or can provide a link for the original publication?
Any help / details would be very much appreciated. I only ask due to facing a similar scenario.
Report this comment
I’m pretty appalled by some of the justification in the comments here suggesting journalists should set aside their humanity and sensitivity around covering suicide inquests because they are performing a ‘public duty.’ If every inquest was covered routinely and some formula for reporting them was applied, I could see the point of these holier than thou comments about our right to report everything – but we don’t. We select what we want to cover and ignore the rest. Do none of you pay any heed to the recommended media guidelines from the likes of The Samaritans, or wonder why they matter? https://www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide
Report this comment
still think the worst aspect of this was the lack of reporter’s notes. Was he or she in the hearing the whole time? Something not quite right about this.
As for sensitivity, even reporters are allowed to be human beings, not reporting robots. All to do with maturity and experience of life.
Report this comment