On 20 March 2025, the day after the Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service held its public sanctions hearing in relation to Mr Navjot (“Jo”) Sidhu KC, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (“IPSO”) published its decision of 5 March 2025 dismissing the complaint which Mrs Luna Sidhu, the wife of Mr Sidhu, had made against The Times on 28 November 2024.

Clause 2 of the Editors’ Code of Practice (“the Code”) provides:

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 of the Code provides:

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.

Mrs Sidhu complained to IPSO about The Times’ article published on 23 November 2024 (the IPSO decision appears to contain a typing error in regard to the year), headlined “Reluctant lawyer who championed diversity”, and which appeared also online below the headline “Who is Jo Sidhu?  The diversity champion accused of targeting aspiring lawyers.”  IPSO described the article as a profile of a barrister who had been accused of professional misconduct and whose case was due to be heard at a disciplinary tribunal.  The article included the complainant’s name, her place of work and the number and gender of the couple’s children.

The complainant alleged that The Times had breached Clause 2 of the Code because her name, occupation and place of work had been included gratuitously.  She said that, although the misconduct had been covered widely, only this article mentioned those details.

Mrs Sidhu argued that The Times had breached Clause 3 of the Code because its journalist had tried to contact her via social media, and when she had ignored the message, the journalist had visited her at home.  This, she said, had distressed her daughter, who had answered the door.  She said her husband had asked the reporter to leave, and the reporter left.

She further alleged breach of Clause 3 of the Code because, as a result of the publication, members of the public had sent “malicious” emails about the case to her workplace.

The Times argued that it had not breached Clause 2 because when the question whether information is private is under consideration, that includes consideration of the extent to which the information has entered the public domain prior to publication.  It relied on the following facts: the complainant had been named as the barrister’s wife in a 2012 article; the 2012 article had stated that they lived together; the 2012 article had stated how many children the couple shared and their gender; a website included had the complainant’s name, occupation and place of work; her husband’s Wikipedia page named the complainant and stated that she and her husband were married.

The publication argued that Clause 3 had not been breached because one social media message, to which the complainant did not respond, and a single approach by a journalist to her home did not amount to harassment.  It said that it had complied with the Code, which was clear that reporters must comply if they are asked to desist from questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals, since its reporters had complied with the request to desist.  Further, although sympathetic to the distress which she had experienced, it maintained that it was not the fault of its reporters that members of the public had sent the emails to Mrs Sidhu’s workplace.

Mrs Sidhu replied that the 2012 article included only her first name and did not state her occupation.  She further argued that although her occupation and workplace were published on the website relied on by The Times, it did not link her to her husband and the misconduct allegations against him.  She pointed out that the Wikipedia page cited the article under complaint as its source for mentioning her and her husband’s relationship.  The complainant asserted that she had been harassed by members of the public as a direct consequence of the article in The Times.

IPSO concluded that Mrs Sidhu did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy about the information in the article complained of, namely her name, job title, place of work, marital status and number of children.  Marital status, including to whom a person is married, or the fact that they have children, is generally not private information, IPSO held.  As was true in this case, information about marital status, to whom a person is married and how many children they have may already be in the public domain.  Details about an individual’s job did not relate to their private or family life.  Although Mrs Sidhu regarded the publication of that information about her in a report about allegations against her husband to be gratuitous, IPSO did not regard it as an intrusion into her private or family life.

IPSO further held that it was standard practice for journalists who were attempting to interview people or verify their stories to approach individuals at home, which could ensure that a publication fulfilled its duty to take care over the accuracy of what information it published.  It was undisputed that Mrs Sidhu had not requested The Times to desist from contacting her prior to the journalist’s visit nor that the reporter had left when asked to go. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 3.

Finally, the argument that The Times had breached Clause 3 because of the emails which members of the public had sent to Mrs Sidhu and her workplace failed.  This was because Clause 3 did not apply to people who are not working for newspapers and the complainant’s concerns related to the behaviour of the public rather than members of the press.