By Tony O’Riley-
Harassment guidelines for journalists contained in the Editors’ Code of Practice “do not last indefinitely”, the Independent Press Standards Organisation has said in a major ruling on Thursday.
The Uks press regulator said Clause 3 of the code which requires journalists not to persist in questioning, phoning, pursuing or photographing people after they have been asked to stop does not last indefinitely, and can be resumed after a period of time has lapsed.
The ruling came after the regulator defended the actions of a Daily Record journalist who approached RBS fraud investigator, Chris Newman, three years after he asked not to be contacted again in relation to any article.
Newman, who is also a football referee, has a millionaire brother Andrew, whom the Daily Record discovered buys multiple tickets for gigs, which he would sell on tout sites Viagogo, StubHub and Get Me In!
Investigators for the Daily Record told The Eye Of Media.Com that there was a legitimate reason to approach Mr. Newman, because of ”the uniqueness of the situation in which he works as a fraud analyst for RBS, while his brother appears to be following a dodgy path in life that has earned him plenty of money”.
The fraud investigator had told bosses he was unaware that his brother was using bank cards in his name, but his brother Andrew Newman said he was given full consent to use the cards of family members.
Approach
The complaint to the regulator arose after the Daily Record journalist had approached fraud investigator Chris Newman, who had just finished refereeing a football match, as he walked across the pitch with players and his fellow match officials.
The reporter said he identified himself, after which Newman shouted: “Get this man away from me” and ran to the changing room. The journalist and photographer immediately left, he said.
Mr.Newman said that after players observed his reaction, they ushered him into the changing room where he stayed for a longer period than would normally be the case. After enquiring with others in the area as to whether the reporter was still in attendance, he was informed that he was not, and so the complainant ran to his car and drove off.
The Record’s story told readers: “When the Record approached Chris Newman for comment after a match he was refereeing at Stirling University, he shouted repeatedly: ‘Get that man away from me’, and ran into the changing rooms.”
In his written complaint to the regulator, Newman said he had to be ushered away by the players because the journalist initially continued to follow him, but the reporter denied this. The RBS bank employee said he had emailed the same journalist in 2017 asking not to be contacted or photographed again for any future article.
Intimidating
Mr.Newman said that the reporter’s conduct was intimidating and made worse by the fact that he was at a place of work with post-match duties to undertake. The complainant disagreed that the request to desist he made in 2017 was not applicable.
Mr. Newman said he had clearly requested that he was not to be contacted in regard to any future article nor would he make any future comments. He had not made any suggestion that this position had changed in the three years leading up to the approach.
He added that there was no public interest in the approach and said that his job had no bearing on the situation regarding his brother’s business dealings.
The complainant also said that the approach represented persistent pursuit in breach of Clause 3, especially as he had made a request – via email in 2017 – for the publication to desist from contacting or photographing him in future regarding any article.
Invalid
Ipso agreed with the Daily Record’s view that the request made by the complainant was no longer applicable or valid because three years had passed since then and the latest approach was made over a new story in the public interest.
No Breach
In its ruling dismissing the complaint, IPSO ruled there had been no breach of the code because “a request to desist does not last indefinitely”.
It said it was appropriate for the newspaper to offer a right to reply before the story was published.
“While the complainant had not changed his mind about wishing to comment on the story over the three years since he made the request to desist, the publication could not assume this,” IPSO said.
“A newspaper has to balance a previous request to desist with the need to allow a fair opportunity to reply to new allegations or a significantly new slant on a story.
“In this instance, it was reasonable for the newspaper to have considered that, given the passage of time, circumstances had changed and the complainant’s position as set out in the notice could have changed.”
It ruled that the reporter’s actions “did not represent a failure to respect a request to desist”.
On the accounts of the incident itself, IPSO said no matter whether the man was “ushered away” the reporter had not followed him into the building or stayed in the area after the encounter and so it was not classed as a “persistent pursuit” in breach of the code.
The regulator also concluded that it was not intimidation for the journalist to turn up at the man’s place of work unexpectedly because he identified himself and left when asked to do so.