Ipso complaint upheld against Shropshire Star over coverage of medical emergency in Oswestry

Sophie Morris complained to Ipso that shropshirestar.com breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Police issue update after air ambulances and emergency services are scrambled to Oswestry”, published on November 16, 2024.

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

The original version of the article included a photograph which showed two uniformed police officers and a woman in a dark coat, standing outside of the complainant’s house – the photograph was, seemingly, taken from the driveway. 

The front of the house, including its open front door, was visible in the photograph.

At the time the photograph of the complainant’s house appeared in the article, the article also reported her street address. It reported both police cars and an ambulance were present. The original version of the article, including the photograph, was removed about an hour after publication.

A link to the article was also published on the publication’s Facebook.

The complainant said that the taking, and publication, of the photograph of her house breached Clause 2 and Clause 4. She said that emergency services had been responding to a medical emergency, during which her infant son had died.

The publication was entitled to attend the street, and to report on the presence of a large number of emergency services vehicles attending an incident. This was potentially a significant news story to the local community. The publication was not aware of the nature of the incident, but this in itself was a legitimate reason to send a reporter to the scene: to determine what had happened and, if appropriate, report on it. 

Sending a reporter to attend the scene did not breach the Code. However, it had a responsibility to ensure that its reporting was carried out with appropriate sensitivity towards those most directly concerned - the complainant and her immediate family.

The published photograph made clear that the complainant’s home was involved in a significant emergency, because it showed uniformed police officers in front of her open door, alongside her street-level address (in the text of the article). The photograph clearly made the complainant identifiable within her community in connection with a highly distressing event.

IPSO took into account the publication’s position that the photograph had been taken, and published, before it had been established that the incident was a medical emergency involving a baby – and that the photograph had not appeared alongside any reference to an emergency involving a baby. 

IPSO also appreciated that the publication promptly removed the photograph. However, IPSO considered that publication of the photograph at a time when the publication was unaware of the true nature of the incident represented a lack of sensitivity in its reporting. 

Where the nature of the incident had not been established, it was reasonably foreseeable that the incident could have involved a death, or other extremely serious matter. This was especially the case where, as the publication acknowledged, neighbours at the scene had told its reporter that they believed the matter involved a child. 

In this context, the publication of a photograph clearly identifying the complainant’s house as the scene of an emergency did not represent sensitive reporting and had intruded into the grief and shock of the complainant. There was a breach of Clause 4.

In regard to Clause 2, IPSO again recognised that the publication was entitled to report on the presence of a large number of emergency services vehicles on the complainant’s street. However, the photograph, which appeared to have been taken from the complainant’s driveway, showed the front of her house. This photograph, in combination with the name of the street, effectively disclosed that the complainant or her family were involved in a significant emergency, which involved the presence of police officers and ambulance crews attending her home - a fact over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

By publishing the photograph of the complainant’s home before the nature of the incident had been established – which was later known to be a medical emergency involving her infant son - IPSO considered the publication had failed to respect the complainant’s private and family life. This was a breach of Clause 2.