Following an article published on 11 November 2021 headlined “Man takes declaration”, a man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Lancashire Telegraph had breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The article reported that a man had made a declaration of faith at a named mosque. It said that the man had taken the Shahadah, the first Pillar of Islam, “in front of witnesses” at the mosque after weekly prayers, adding that “in a recording of the moment” the man was heard being welcomed into the community by the Imam.

The article included the Iman’s comments at the ceremony, made reference to the area where the man was from and was accompanied by a photograph, captioned “CEREMONY: The man being hugged in the mosque”, which showed the back of the complainant.

The complainant said that the publication intruded into his private life, in breach of Clause 2 (Privacy). He said that the photograph and recording of the ceremony had been taken without his knowledge and consent while he had been making a private declaration of faith, which he said had taken place in the company of “loads” of fellow worshippers.

He considered that the inclusion of his first name, the area where he lived, and the photograph, identified him to his family and friends – who were not aware of his conversion to Islam – as well as people living in the local area. This had caused him considerable distress and disrupted his private and family life.

The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. While the publication accepted that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the information included within the article, it did not accept that the complainant was identified.

It said that the article was based upon information provided by a member of the mosque, and published in good faith.

It further said that the information contained within the article had been put into the public domain prior to the article’s publication; the source had recorded the ceremony and captured the published photograph, sharing this information on SoundCloud and then subsequently within a WhatsApp Broadcast.

The photograph, which had been taken without the complainant’s knowledge, showed him participating in a religious ritual, inside a place of worship. In the view of the Committee, the article had contained sufficient information to identify the complainant within a small, local community. It therefore effectively disclosed the fact of his conversion to Islam to those who recognised him. The complainant had not publicly disclosed this information; indeed, the article’s publication had caused him considerable distress.

While the newspaper’s source had observed the complainant’s Shahadah and had subsequently shared the recording and photograph online and via WhatsApp, the newspaper had not sought or obtained consent from the complainant himself.

In addition, the Committee did not consider that the publication had demonstrated that the information had entered the public domain to any substantial extent; the publication had not been able to demonstrate how many people had viewed the WhatsApp message or the SoundCloud page prior to the article’s publication. In the view of the Committee, there were no grounds to conclude that the recording and photograph had entered the public domain to the extent that it reduced or eliminated the complainant’s reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information.

While the Committee recognised the publication’s apparent intention to report on a positive community event, using information provided by an established member of the local community, it concluded that publishing this private information, alongside a photograph of the complainant engaged in a religious ceremony inside a place of worship, constituted a significant and unjustified intrusion into the complainant’s private life.

The article – both in print and online – breached Clause 2 of the Editors’ Code.