Radcliffe School IPSO complaint upheld

The article reported on the response of the Radcliffe School to the death of one of its pupils. It included a social media post, made by the sister of the pupil who had died, commenting on allegations against the school.

The complainant, acting on behalf of the child’s parents, said that the inclusion of the social media post breached Clause 6, where the publication had used the social media post of a minor – the sibling of the deceased child, a 15-year-old – in a published article without the express consent of a responsible adult.

The publication did not accept that Clause 6 was breached: It said that the social media post was not an “interview”, and Clause 6 only requires consent from a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult in cases where a child is interviewed on a matter relating to their or another child’s welfare – rather than cases when a social media post is sourced from online.

IPSO’s Complaints Committee noted that the Editors’ Code of Practice, in providing additional protections for children, acknowledges their particularly vulnerable position in relation to the press. As such, honouring the full spirit of the Code means that what will constitute an “interview” for the purposes of Clause 6 is broader than circumstances where a journalist directly solicits comment or information from a child. Depending on the circumstances, and the nature of the published comments, unsolicited comments – such as the one republished in the article – may constitute an interview, and therefore parental consent would be required should the comment relate to the welfare of a child.

In this instance, the comment – though unsolicited – had been portrayed in the article as the sister’s response to the subject matter of the article. Therefore, the Committee considered that it represented an interview as defined by Clause 6. The Committee also considered that the subject matter of the comment clearly related to the child’s welfare; it related to allegations of bullying in her school environment, and linked these allegations to the recent death of her sibling. The child’s parents had not consented to the publication of this comment, and there was therefore a breach of Clause 6.

The Committee acknowledged that there was a public interest in reporting on the allegations against the school. However, the Committee did not consider that the public interest was so exceptional as to justify publishing the child’s social media post, and over-ride the paramount interest of that child.

The result can be read in full here https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=01972-22