Publishers including The Sun, The Telegraph and The Times have raised the alarm over a ruling from the UK’s biggest press regulator that, they say, threatens the ability to report on open court proceedings.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) ruled against Reach website Aberdeen Live after it included a “detailed description” of a rape victim’s physical reaction to the attack against her, as described by the prosecutor in the case.
IPSO said the story was in breach of Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, which states: “In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.”
In a leader column, The Telegraph said the decision on what to publish from court proceedings should be a judgment made by editors, not a “taste test” imposed by IPSO.
Related
It said: “All news outlets need to gauge how to report these matters on the grounds of good taste, both for the victim’s sake and to conform to the proprieties of their readers. However, whether they do or not is a matter for them if the information has been made available in open court and is in the public domain.
“They will have to justify their reporting to their readers. Unless the court has specifically ruled that certain information cannot be reported, it is not for IPSO to impose its own taste test.”
Content from our partners
The Telegraph added: “Many publications, including this one, would not have used all the detail set out in open court. But this is an editorial judgment, not one for a regulator to make. IPSO needs to avoid straying into areas that even its own code says should be beyond its remit.”
Sun and Times say decision ‘clearly wrong’ and effectively imposed reporting restrictions
In its own leader column, The Sun said IPSO’s decision was “clearly wrong”.
“No one could have anything but sympathy” for the victim, it said. “But IPSO must not seek to censor trial evidence not already subject to reporting restrictions.
“It is a judgment for editors, not watchdogs, what to publish from court — or our press is not free.”
In fellow News UK title The Times, former crime editor and chief reporter Sean O’Neill wrote that IPSO had “taken a step too far, away from the business of monitoring the editors’ code and into the territory of editorial judgment.
“It has also, in effect, imposed reporting restrictions on a case where a senior judge did not consider them necessary. What’s next? Perhaps IPSO will curtail reporting of victim impact statements?”
O’Neill added that more widely “the task of reporting on the workings of the courts and the criminal justice system has become more difficult.
“The Law Commission has proposed restricting public and press access to rape trials. More defendants try their hand at obtaining anonymity orders. Magistrates often hear cases behind closed doors under the controversial single justice procedure. It is not the role of IPSO to add to this censorious atmosphere.”
There has been one comparable ruling in the past, when in 2016 IPSO said a report by the Gravesend News Shopper about an inquest into a woman’s suicide included a “gratuitous” description given by a witness.
The regulator said at the time that “given the potential for such an emotive description to cause distress, its inclusion represented a failure to handle publication sensitively”.
IPSO: Details ‘went beyond reporting of the crime’
IPSO defended the latest ruling, saying the article “contained details which went beyond reporting of the crime” and that this was unjustified.
A spokesperson for the regulator told Press Gazette: “IPSO strongly supports the principle of open justice. We have issued many decisions protecting the rights of journalists to report on court proceedings.
“Nonetheless, the Editors’ Code of Practice has always been clear that editors must exercise judgement in relation to the publication of material heard in open court, for example by limiting details of suicide methods. Similarly, the Code requires journalists and editors to handle cases sensitively to avoid intruding into grief and shock.
“This was an unusual case. The Complaints Committee deliberated on the complaint carefully and concluded that the article contained details which went beyond reporting of the crime which in this particular case were not justified. The publication had not demonstrated that it had considered its obligation to handle publication sensitively, and this aspect of the complaint was upheld.”
The publishers’ own objections were shared by the likes of Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown prosecutor who sat on IPSO’s complaints committee until last year, and Free Speech Union director Toby Young.
Afzal told The Telegraph: “Each case is, of course, dealt with on its own merits and the trauma experienced by the victim must always be at the forefront of our minds, but there is a danger that this outcome will stifle the public interest in accurate court reporting.”
Meanwhile GB News ran a story headlined: “Fears free speech UNDER THREAT as watchdog reprimands journalists for reporting on court case – ‘Slippery slope!‘”
In response to the complaint Aberdeen Live had apologised for any upset and distress caused, saying this was not its intention but a risk of reporting about serious crimes. It also removed two sentences from the article.
The woman had told IPSO the detail in the report had re-traumatised her.
IPSO said in its initial ruling that these particular details “did not amount to, or form part of, the crime committed by the attacker – but rather were the complainant’s personal reaction as the victim of a horrific crime, deeply personal and with the clear potential to be extremely intrusive to the complainant.
“The Committee recognised that in some circumstances the publication of such personal and intrusive details may be justified. However, no such justification was put forward in these circumstances…”
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
