John Chapman’s family: IPSO upholds Clause 4 complaint against The Sun

The family of John Chapman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication on article headlined “TRAGIC MISTAKE”, published on 3 April 2024.

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

On 1 April, John Chapman was killed in an airstrike in Gaza while working as an aid-worker. On 2 April, at around 1:30pm and before John Chapman’s parents had been informed of their son’s death, a reporter visited their property.

The complainants said that the reporter turned up outside the property and informed John Chapman’s parents that there had been an airstrike, and people had been hurt.

The reporter subsequently entered the property – at their invitation – and asked further questions about John Chapman, while they were in a state of shock and confusion.

The complainants - John Chapman’s wife and brother-in-law - said that, due to the reporter’s approach at the property, they then had to inform John Chapman’s parents of his death over the phone.

The complainants said that the interaction intruded into and added to their grief, exacerbated a distressing situation, and negated and undermined all efforts to sensitively deliver the news of John Chapman’s death to his parents.

The publication said sending reporters to visit family members of deceased individuals is not, in of itself, insensitive or indiscreet. It also said it was not unreasonable for it to assume that John Chapman’s family had been informed.

Regarding the interaction at the property, it said that, once its reporter had realised that John Chapman’s parents were unaware of his death, the reporter had sought advice.

He had called the news desk, before entering the property, and it had been agreed that the reporter make polite conversation before leaving as soon as possible, without informing John Chapman’s parents of his death, as leaving immediately may have prompted further questions.

It said it regretted that it had reached the property before the family, but that its reporter had tried to not reveal any further distressing information once aware of the situation.

The press should take care not to disclose news of a person’s death to the immediate members of their family. IPSO noted that, in this case, there was no official confirmation that the family had been informed – or indeed that Mr Chapman was deceased. Particular care should therefore have been taken when making the approach to the Chapman household.

The reporter encountered Mr Chapman’s father outside the property on arrival.

It was evident from his demeanour, as conveyed by the publication’s recording of the interaction, that he was not in a state of distress as would likely have been the case had he been aware of his son’s involvement in the incident.

At this point, it should have been evident to the reporter that there was at least a strong likelihood that the Chapmans were unaware of John Chapman’s death. This was then confirmed when, in the initial interaction, the reporter asked Mr Chapman’s father: “have you heard any news from him at all?”, to which he responded “no”.

The reporter had then contacted the news desk for guidance.

IPSO wished to record its view that, at this stage, the reporter had acted properly and appropriately by stepping away from a sensitive situation, and seeking guidance on how to handle the situation.

The reporter had then been advised, on the publication’s account, that he make polite conversation, but not reveal John Chapman’s death.

In IPSO’s view, the decision to direct the reporter to remain at the property in circumstances where the publication was aware that Mr Chapman was, or very likely was, deceased, and his parents were unaware of this, represented a clear breach of Clause 4 and was likely to cause significant distress, confusion, and intrusion.

It made it likely that the reporter either would disclose information about Mr Chapman’s condition, or would be present when the family received distressing news about their son.

It also led to a situation in which the reporter was drawn into conversations about Mr Chapman that were highly intrusive and caused the family further concern and upset.

The publication had said that the reporter was trying to make polite conversation before leaving as soon as possible.

However, the reporter asked a number of specific questions regarding Mr Chapman. This demonstrated that the reporter was undertaking further inquiries rather than leaving the situation at the earliest opportunity.

Further, while the reporter did not state to the Chapmans that their son had been killed, he had disclosed information to the family about the circumstances of his death.

IPSO acknowledged that the reporter had found himself in a difficult situation. However, the decision to enter the property made it reasonably foreseeable, and even likely, that such a difficult situation would arise.

While IPSO noted the publication’s concerns that leaving the property after the initial approach may have led to further questions, the magnitude of the potential harm that might have been caused was far lesser than what subsequently occurred: the parents of John Chapman being made aware, via an interaction with a reporter working for a national publication and without the appropriate support, that their son had been involved in an airstrike, which in fact had been fatal.

The Committee did not consider that the reporter’s decision to enter the property or the further interactions that occurred while he was in the property constituted a sympathetic or discreet approach. This was a breach of Clause 4.