IPSO upholds adjudication in opposition to MailOnline following grievance

Sandra Nicholls, acting on her own behalf and on behalf of Lydia Ball and Kelly-Jane Mann, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime) and Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article headlined ‘Mother-in-law of married Army Sergeant who raped colleague after barracks party is reported to police for ‘harassing his victim”, published on 9 December 2023.

The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required Mail Online to publish this adjudication to remedy the breach of the Code.

The article, which appeared online only, reported that the complainant – who was described in the article as the ‘mother-in-law of a soldier who faces prison for raping a colleague’ – had ‘apparently been messaging family and friends of the woman he raped’ and that ‘[t]he messages have been framed as in support of his wife and her daughter, Lydia Ball’.

The article contained further details about the complainant’s relationship with her son-in-law: it reported that she had ‘changed her avatar to a picture of’ her son-in-law and that, ‘[a]s part of his bail conditions, [her son-in-law] must live at [the complainant’s] address.’

The article was illustrated with photographs of the complainant, Sandra Nicholls, and another woman who was described in the photograph’s caption as ‘her daughter Lydia’. However, the pictured woman was Kelly-Jane Mann.

The complainant contacted the publication on the day the article was published, to make it aware that the article included a photograph which incorrectly identified the woman pictured as her daughter. The complainant also said that the article inaccurately reported she had changed her Facebook profile picture to show her son-in-law. She said the photograph actually showed her deceased nephew.

The article was then amended the day after publication to remove the picture of Ms Mann, and also to remove the reference to the complainant having ‘changed her avatar to a picture of’ her son-in-law. The complainant then followed up with a further email, sent two days later, in which she said that her son-in-law was not bailed to her address, as reported by the article.

The complainant then contacted IPSO with her concerns. She also said that the article breached Clause 9 of the Editors’ Code, as family members of convicted people should not be reported on – according to this Clause – and Ms Mann had been identified as the wife of a convicted rapist, as her photograph had appeared in the first version of the article.

On 8 April 2024, the publication proposed to remove the article, and to publish a correction, which would appear in the online clarifications and corrections section.

However, the publication did not accept that Ms Mann was fully identified in the article, and therefore did not consider that the terms of Clause 9 had been breached by the inclusion of her photograph. It said that her relationship to the defendant was not disclosed in the article, nor was she named. It also said that her picture appeared in the article only briefly, and as a result of human error. However, the Committee did not agree: Ms Mann’s photograph had appeared prominently within the article, plainly displaying her likeness and linking her to Mr Ball’s crimes.

In such circumstances, identifying Ms Mann as the wife of Mr Ball, a convicted rapist, was a breach of Clause 9 – she was not genuinely relevant to the story.

The Committee turned next to the concerns raised under the terms of Clause 1. Both the publication and the complainant accepted that the article inaccurately reported that the complainant had ‘changed her avatar to a picture of’ her son-in-law. In fact, the avatar in question showed her late nephew.

In this case, the inaccurate claim served the purpose of supporting the article’s narrative of the complainant’s support of her nephew. While the publication had taken some steps to verify the accuracy of this claim the Committee considered that further steps should have been taken to verify this information – for instance, seeking the complainant’s comment. There was, therefore, a failure to take care on this point, and a breach of Clause 1 (i).

In such circumstances, this claim was significantly inaccurate and the publication was required to correct it, promptly and with due prominence, to avoid a further breach of Clause 1 (ii).

The article had misidentified Ms Mann as the wife of a convicted rapist. Again, given the nature of the claim being made, the Committee did not consider the limited steps taken to verify this information were sufficient, given that the publication did not appear to have tried to identify Mrs Ball using other photographs. There was, therefore, a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information, and a breach of Clause 1 (i). This inaccuracy was significant, given it inaccurately identified Ms Mann as being married to a convicted rapist. It was, therefore, a significant inaccuracy which required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

The article had inaccurately reported that Mr Ball had been bailed to his mother-in-law’s address. Again, the Committee noted that limited steps appeared to have been made to verify this information. This was not sufficient care given the importance of ensuring the accurate reporting of court proceedings, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i). The inaccuracy was also significant, again given the importance of accurately reporting court proceedings, and where this inaccuracy contributed to the article’s narrative of the complainant’s support for her son-in-law. Therefore, the publication was required to correct this information in line with the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

The Committee had identified several instances of significantly inaccurate information in the article in need of correction. While the publication had said during the complaints process that it would be happy to publish wording to correct two of these inaccuracies, it had not proposed the wording or location of any corrective wording until it had offered to remove and correct the article on the 8th of April – four months after it was made aware of the complainant’s concerns. The Committee was not satisfied with the promptness with which the publication proposed the correction, given the delay between it being made aware of the inaccuracies and the proposed wording being offered. There was, therefore a breach of Clause 1 (ii) in relation to the promptness of the proposed remedial action.

In light of the delay in offering a correction, and further delays during the IPSO investigation process, the Committee wished to put on the record its significant concerns at the publication’s handling of this complaint. It also expressed regret that the delays in the publication’s response had led to the complaint being upheld under Clause 1(ii). Therefore, it requested that the publication undertake an internal review of its complaints handling in this case, and write to IPSO’s Standards team with the outcome of this review and proposals as to how it might avoid similar delays in the future.