A WOMAN complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser breached Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article published in print and online in 2019. Clause 11 of the Code requires that the press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to lead to such identification unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.
IPSO upheld the complaint and has required the Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.
The article reported that an individual had received a custodial sentence after being convicted of sexual offences against two children.
The complainant said that the article had contained details which had identified her as a victim of sexual assault.
The newspaper said that the details reported in the article were necessary in order to enable the public to understand the facts of the offence. It provided explanations as to why it did not believe that the details in the article were likely to contribute to the identification of the victim.
The Committee made clear that it is a fundamental principle of open justice that court proceedings are reported on by the media in an open and transparent way.
Both the law and the Code requires that, when upholding this fundamental principle in cases involving sexual assault, a publication must not publish material likely to contribute to the identification of the victim.
The article had disclosed information heard in court regarding the circumstances in which the offences had occurred. This included the location in which the offences had taken place, and the defendant and the complainant’s association with that location.
The Committee considered that the combination of these particular details, alongside the period of time in which the offences had occurred, and the ages of the victims, represented information which would only be known to the complainant’s community, and was likely to lead to her identification as a victim in the case.
The complaint was therefore upheld as a breach of Clause 11.
