Re: Complaint by Dr Eccy de Jonge (ref: EJ/3/2014

Date of complaint: 25/11/14

Article complained of: “Police investigated woman after she questioned
handling of mother’s death” Published in the Guardian on 30 & 31/10/14
(the article)

1. Throughout this decision, Dr de Jonge will be referred to as “the

complainant” and the above mentioned article as “the article”. Guardian
News & Media will be referred to as “GNM”, the former Press
Complaints Commission Code as “the Code”, and the Review Panel as
“the Panel”.

The Article
2. In summary, the article is about Sussex Police Force (SPF) gathering
evidence in relation to the complainant’s beliefs and online activity. The
evidence was gathered when the complainant made complaints
against police officers during their investigation into the death of her
mother in a road traffic collision in November 2013.

3. Throughout the article, a series of factual allegations are made against

SPF as to the nature and extent of their investigation into the
complainant. The authors of the piece, Rob Evans and Leila Haddou,
both interviewed the complainant, and saw documents she obtained as
a result of applications under Data Protection/Freedom of Information
laws. Direct quotes appear throughout the piece from both the
complainant and from representatives of SPF.

The Complaint
4. The complainant complained to the Reader’s Editor (RE). As a result of
her complaint the RE offered to make the following footnote
clarifications/alterations to the online version of the article.
a. The fact that the complainant was placed on the Metropolitan
Police’s (the Met) Merlin database following a request made by
SPF.
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 b. Changing the photograph of her on the online version of the
article.
c. Changing the reference in the article from “road accident” to
“road traffic collision”.

5. In her complaint form to the Panel, the complainant makes a wide-

ranging attack upon the article, raising breaches of clause 1 and 5 of
the Code. She repeats, essentially, her complaint to the RE about the
use of the phrase “official register for vulnerable adults” in the
sentences in the article “the Police also claim that the woman appeared
to be mentally ill and placed her on an official register for vulnerable
adults without consulting any medical professionals. They later
conceded that she was not mentally ill”. The complainant says that the
reference to the register was misleading in two respects. First, it fails to
make clear that the register referred to is not a national register.
Secondly, there was no reference to a second data base known as
Merlin, where, according to the complainant, her details can also be
found.

6. Again, in an echo of her complaint to the RE, the complainant asserts

that it was inaccurate of the authors to refer to “police” in the general
sense in their article. Rather, she argues, it would have been accurate
to refer to SPF, the Metropolitan Police and the College of Policing
where appropriate.

7. Finally, the complainant throughout her completed form, makes

generalised complaints about the article being misleading, untrue and
containing fabrications.

Discussion
Complaint under Clause 1
8. Clause 1 of the Code states,

“1. Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion
once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due
prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In
cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed
with the PCC in advance.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly

between comment, conjecture and fact.

iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome

of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless
an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement
is published.”
The description of “the register”
9. It is correct that the article does not make mention of the fact that the
register referred to is not a national register, nor the fact that the
complainant’s details appear on two registers. However, the Panel are
of the view that this does not render this particular sentence inaccurate.
It is the Panel’s view that the words “official register for vulnerable
people” are capable of covering the Merlin database (which includes
details of individuals who fall into a wider category of vulnerable
people).

Reference to “police” generally

10. It is not inaccurate to refer to a particular policing authority as “the
police”. Despite the fact that police forces in the United Kingdom are
divided into regions and are funded regionally, they are a national body
and are recognised as such in legislation. However, the article makes it
clear in the third sentence (and, elsewhere in the piece) that it is the
actions of SPF that is under scrutiny. Therefore, the reader can be
under no illusions as to which police force is being criticised and there
is no risk of misleading.

11. The complainant asserts that a subject access request by the Police
referred to in the article came, not only from SPF, but also from the Met
and the College of Policing. The absence of the latter two bodies from
the article does not, in the Panel’s view make the article inaccurate or
misleading.
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
The article is misleading, untrue and contains fabrications
12. The Panel notes that the complainant has not set out in her complaint
form, what words or sentences in the article are untrue. Therefore the
Panel has looked at each factual assertion made in the article and then
considered whether it is accurate. Some of the more serious
allegations made by the complainant in her form will be addressed
separately in the course of this decision.

13. The Panel is of the view that each assertion made in the article is
supported by the documents made available by the complainant
through a link on her complaint form. In most cases, the article uses
the same wording as appears in the document accessible via the link.
Assuming the documents are genuine (and there is no reason to doubt
their veracity) the assertions made in the article are accurate.

The Guardian did not report upon the death of the complainant’s mother
14. The Panel observes that this aspect of the complaint does not, strictly
speaking, fall under any of the clauses of the Code. However, it is
correct that, apart from a few passing references, there is no lengthy
discussion of the very sad fatal accident that gave rise to the events
forming the subject-matter of the article.

15. The focus of the article is entirely upon the actions SPF took in
investigating the complainant. The Panel are of the view that the
authors were entitled to take a view as to what they consider to be the
public interest angle of the piece. There is a clear public interest in a
story about the police gathering evidence on an individual in an
apparent attempt to discredit them if they insist upon pursuing
complaints. The Panel can see no fault attributable to the authors in
deciding not to report more widely on the very sad death of the
complainant’s mother.

Refusing to name individual police officers

16. This is another complaint that appears, in the view of the Panel, not to
fall under the Code. However, as a courtesy to the complainant, the
Panel have decided to address it, albeit briefly. It is the collective
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 experience of the Panel that there may well be good editorial reasons
for not naming individual officers. From a legal perspective, making a
decision to name individual police officers in an article such as this one
is fraught with difficulties.

17. In any event, the Panel is of the view that the authors were entitled not
to name individuals in the article. It is clear from reading the piece that
what is being criticised is the approach SPF adopted in dealing with the
bereaved complainant.

The complaint under Clause 5

18. Clause 5 of the Code states,

“5. Intrusion into grief or shock

i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and
approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and
publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right
to report legal proceedings, such as inquests.
*ii) When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid
excessive detail about the method used.”

19. Again, this is a generalised allegation made by the complainant. She

does not say in what way the article, either in part, or as a whole, was
in breach of clause 5. Clause 5 (i) makes mention of enquiries and
approaches being made with “sympathy and discretion and publication
handled sensitively”. The Panel notes that the paradigm case which
this clause is aimed at are those involving a sudden, unexplained death
for example, with journalists door-stepping family members in order to
obtain comment. However, this story did not come about in that way. It
is clear to the Panel that the authors had, at least initially, and, pre-
publication the consent of the complainant. She was clearly interviewed
and made available to the authors documents from which they took
quotes.

20. Further, the Panel notes that the publication of the article1 came almost
a year after the sad death of the complainant’s mother in November

1
 Date  of  publication  30/10/14.  
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
 2013. The article was not published in the immediate aftermath of the
accident or so soon thereafter so as to provoke a feeling of unease as
to how quickly the media has moved in on the story.

Decision
21. The article complained of is one that is sympathetic to the situation the
complainant found herself in following complaints she made against
SPF officers. For the reasons set out in this decision, the article, in the
unanimous view of the Panel is not inaccurate either generally or in
choosing to refer to “police” or calling the Merlin data base a register
for vulnerable adults. Again, in our view, the publication of the article
cannot be considered to be in breach of clause 5 (i). There was no
unsolicited approach to the complainant in the immediate aftermath of
her mother’s death and publication of the article was with her consent.
The complaints are therefore dismissed.

SIGNED

Chair:

Panel member:
Panel Member: Elinor Goodman
Dated: 13th February 2015

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG