03354-25 Harris v Eastern Daily Press

Summary of Complaint

1. Stephen Harris complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Eastern Daily Press breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article headlined “Museum manager 'looted collection'”, published on 31 July 2025 and an article headlined “Museum manager accused of selling off stolen treasures”, published on 31 July 2025.

2. The first article under complaint appeared on the newspaper’s front page, and reported that the complainant had “appeared in court charged with stealing at least £52,000 worth of artefacts from its collection and selling them off at auction”. Its sub-headline read: “Boss denies stealing £52k of artefacts”.

3. A second article under complaint appeared on page 5 of the same edition. This article opened by reporting: “A Norfolk museum manager has been accused of stealing artefacts from work and selling them at auctions for tens of thousands of pounds”. The article went on to report the complainant’s full name and street level address. It also reported that he had pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.

4. This article also included a photograph of the complainant. It showed the complainant – seemingly outside, and taken from a close proximity – holding an envelope over his face so that it was obscured from the camera.

5. This version of the article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline: “Norfolk museum manager 'stole historic horde worth £52k'”.

6. The online version included two versions of the same photograph of the complainant referenced above.

7. The online article included another photograph of the complainant, showing him sat inside a car. The photograph again showed the complainant covering his face with an envelope.

8. The complainant said that the articles breached Clause 1 because the headlines reported that he stole the items from the museum. He said that, read in isolation, the headlines suggested to a reader he was guilty, which had not been proven in a court of law.

9. He also said that the articles’ publication represented a breach of Clause 2. He added that the second article included his address which, he said, had no value to the story. He also said it had caused distress for him and his family.

10. The complainant also complained that the actions of the photographer – who had taken the photos featured in the article – breached Clause 3. He said that, upon leaving the court, he was pursued and harassed by the photographer as he left a car park and walked to his parked car along another road. He said that the photographer took photos as she followed him, and continued to do so when he was in his car. He said he had been followed for around 300 metres.

11. The complainant added that he did not speak to the photographer throughout this interaction.

12. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. In respect of Clause 3, it said it believed the photographer’s actions were valid, given the complainant was in a public place and the severity of the charges he was facing,

13. It also disputed any breach of Clause 1 arose from its article. It noted that the headline used single quote marks, and said that this was standard practice.

14. In respect of the headline, the complainant said that he failed to see how a member of the public would understand the difference between double and single quote marks in this context. He also said that readers may only see the headline which, he said, reported that he had stolen the items.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Clause 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Findings of the Committee

15. The Committee began with the complainant’s concern that the photographer had followed him from the exit of the court while taking photographs. The Committee noted that, by the complainant’s admission, he had not spoken to the photographer during this interaction; a request to desist from photographing him had seemingly not been communicated.

16. The Committee also had regard for the circumstances in which the photographs had been taken. The complainant had been outside the court. This was a public place, and the Committee noted it is common for photographers to take photographs in such circumstances, and the Code does not prohibit such photography provided no request to desist from photographing someone has been made.

17. The Committee also considered the length of distance the complainant was followed to be relatively brief – roughly 300 metres – and, while a photograph had then been taken when the complainant was in his car, it did not appear that the photographer had continued to follow the complainant away from the court and the car park.

18. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the photographer’s conduct amounted to harassment, intimidation or persistent pursuit. There was no breach of Clause 3.

19. The Committee then turned to Clause 1. The complainant had complained that the headline reported he was guilty. He had later expressed concerns that a member of the public may not understand the difference between double and single quote marks in this context.

20. The Committee was clear that articles should be read as a whole – it also noted that inverted commas in headlines are typically used to indicate claims upon which an article will later expand. In this case, the Committee considered that the use of inverted commas in the headlines indicated that it had been claimed the complainant “looted” and “stole” the items in question. The text of both versions then reported that he had been “accused” and “charged” with the crime – both versions also made clear he denied the allegations, or had pleaded not guilty.

21. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider any version of the articles, or the relevant headlines, to be inaccurate or misleading on this point. The headlines did not report, as fact, that the complainant was guilty – and when read as a whole, the articles made clear he denied the allegations, and that his case was ongoing. The headlines were not inaccurate or misleading, and were supported and clarified by the text that followed. There was no breach of Clause 1.

22. Finally, the Committee considered Clause 2. It noted that – in accordance with the principle of open justice - newspapers are generally entitled to report information that has been disclosed in open court and is not subject to a reporting restriction. A defendant’s address is typically given in court, and the publication of an address helps to accurately identify defendants. In these circumstances, and where the complainant had not contended that any reporting restrictions were in place in relation to his hearing, the Committee did not consider that the reporting of his street level address represented a breach of Clause 2. There was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

23. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 18/08/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/01/2026