HRH The Duke of York v The Sun
Complaint
HRH The Duke of York complained through his solicitors that the newspaper had published, without his consent, photographs which intruded into his private life in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant was concerned that the newspaper had published pictures of him on a beach, which was effectively private, and where he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. He believed that the photographs must have been taken from the sea using an exceptionally long lens.
Resolution
The newspaper said that, while a long lens had been used, the photographs had been taken from land, further along the coastline. The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the removal of photographs from the newspaper’s website. (Cl 3)
Wales and Bonas v Daily Mirror
Complaint
HRH Prince Henry of Wales and Cressida Bonas complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published two photographs of them that intruded into their privacy in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the removal of the photographs and an accompanying article from the newspaper’s website, along with the publication of the following apology, in print and online:
An apology to Prince Harry & Cressida Bonas
On 14 February 2014 we published in the paper and online two photographs of Prince Harry and Cressida Bonas, taken by audience members and put up on social media whilst they were attending a performance at the Royal Albert Hall. We accept that the event was private and apologise to them both for publishing the photographs. (Cl 3)
A Man v Staffordshire Newsletter
Complaint
A man complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant was a surgeon, and the newspaper had published details of the complainant’s appearance before a Fitness to Practise panel, but not published a follow-up article when the complainant’s performance was found to be not deficient.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the original article was removed from the newspaper’s website and the PCC negotiated the publication of a follow-up article both in print and online. (Cl 1, Cl 2)
Poulson v Daily Mail
Complaint
Mr Stephen Poulson complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1 Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant said that the article incorrectly said: he had “trolled” a councillor; accused the councillor of keeping a “‘gimp’ sex slave”; and accused him of soliciting sex from Boy Scouts.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when PCC negotiated the removal of any reference to the Boy Scouts, the removal the allegation from the headline that the complainant had accused the council of keeping a “‘gimp’ sex slave” and the publication of the following apology:
An earlier version of this article said that Stephen Poulson had accused Stephen Radford of soliciting sex from boy scouts. We have since been informed that this was not the case and regret any distress caused. (Cl 1)
O’Driscoll v Take a Break
Complaint
Mr Sean O’Driscoll complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, that the magazine had published an inaccurate account of the circumstances of his wife’s death.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated a private letter of apology for the complainant (Cl 1, 5)
Foster v The Guardian
Complaint
Dr David Foster complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. He said that a comment article had not accurately summarised an argument which he had previously made in an article of his own in the same newspaper.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated amendments to the wording of the online article. (Cl 1)
Shrewsbury v Daily Mail (Mail Online)
Complaint
Mr Eric Shrewsbury complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, that the newspaper had published inaccuracies in a report of the death of his granddaughter’s father.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following correction and apology:
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated Mr Parkinson was staying with relatives in the house where Jayden was born when he died. In fact, he was staying with friends. We are happy to make this clear and apologise for any additional distress caused to Jayden's family at this difficult time. (Cl 1)
Giles v Daily Mirror
Complaint
Mr Joseph Giles complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, that an article headlined ‘Colony of killer snakes ‘capable of crushing small children to death’ on the loose in London’ inaccurately reported the danger posed by the snakes. The complainant said that Aesculapian snakes are harmless to humans and have lived in London for a number of years without injuring a human.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated amendments to the online article. The headline was revised so that it read “Colony of 6ft snakes on loose in London”. The newspaper offered to append a footnote to make clear that the article had been amended. (Cl 1)
Giles v The Independent
Complaint
Mr Joseph Giles complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, that an article inaccurately reported that Aesculapian snakes are capable of crushing small children. The complainant said that Aesculapian snakes are harmless to humans and have lived in London for a number of years without injuring a human.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper re-wrote the article so that it focused on the London Invasive Species Initiative’s call for a cull of the animals, while conservationists argue that they should be protected. (Cl 1)
Avery v The Mail on Sunday
Complaint
Mrs Theresa Avery complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, about unwanted approaches to her family by a journalist working for the newspaper.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated a private letter of apology for the complainant, as well as a gift for the complainant’s son’s birthday. (Cl 4)
