Press Regulation Research Findings
Date and newspaper:
10/07/2016, Daily Mail
Case brought by:
Harris
Details of case:
- Lian Harris complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Judge stalked by surrogate mum she told to give up baby”, published in print on 23 June, and “Surrogate mother left judge fearing for her life when she turned up on her doorstep after losing legal battle to keep her child”, published online on 23 June 2016.
- The article reported on the complainant’s Magistrates’ Court sentencing hearing, where it said a 16-month suspended prison sentence was imposed for harassing a family court judge. It said that the complainant had agreed to be surrogate mother for a couple, but later changed her mind to keep the baby; it said that the judge had ruled that the child should stay with the couple, and had “feared for her life” when the complainant had called to her door.
- The complainant said that her child was the subject of ongoing proceedings in the family court, and entitled by law to anonymity. She said that by publishing her name in the court report, the newspaper had identified her child, and breached her child’s right to privacy under Clause 2, as well as the terms of Clause 6.
- The complainant said that she had been sentenced to a 16-week suspended sentence, not a 16-month suspended sentence. She said that it was inaccurate to report that she was a surrogate mother, as the child was biologically hers. She also said that it was inaccurate to report that the judge had “feared for her life”, as this was not mentioned in her witness statement.
- The newspaper said that it did not identify the child in the article. It said that the child’s gender, name or age was not reported, and there was no intrusion into the child’s life. It said that it was heard in court that the complainant was a surrogate mother; it said that the press has a right to publish reports of all matters held in open court, and repeat the language used during those hearings.
- The newspaper accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant was given a 16-month suspended sentence, and said the inaccuracy had come about due to a typing error. However, while it did not consider that the inaccuracy changed the overall meaning of the article, it offered to publish the following correction on page 2 of the newspaper, as well as a footnote to the online article:
A report on 23 June said that the sentence received by Ms Lian Harris at Manchester Magistrates’ Court for harassment was a 16-month suspended prison term. We are happy to clarify that in fact it was a 16-week suspended term. We are also happy to make clear that Ms Harris denies entering into a surrogacy arrangement for her child."
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy
2 - Privacy
3 - Harassment
4 - Intrusion into grief or shock
6 - Children
12 - Discrimination
14 - Confidential Sources
Adjudicated by:
IPSO - Independent Press Standards Organisation
Outcome:
No breach - after investigation
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=04771-16
Date and newspaper:
22/06/2016, Daily Mail
Case brought by:
Dartington
Details of case:
- Jake Dartington complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “We’re from Europe – Let us in!”, published on 16 June 2016. The article was also published online on 15 June with the headline “We’re from Europe – let us in! As politicians squabble over border controls, yet another lorry load of migrants arrives in the UK”.
- The article, which was the only article on the front page, reported that a lorry carrying 11 “stowaways” had been intercepted by police in East London. It was accompanied by a prominent image of the police speaking to the individuals in the back of the lorry. It reported that when these individuals were asked where they were from, they replied “Europe”, a claim which was supported prominently by the sub-headline.
- The article went on to report that the Conservative Party was “in chaos over border controls”. It reported that the Chancellor had said there would be no changes to European Union rules on freedom of movement, while the Home Secretary had said that further reform was needed.
- The complainant said that the individuals found in the lorry were not from Europe: they were trying to enter the UK illegally, and it was therefore clear they were not European citizens. The phrase “We’re from Europe” spuriously implied a connection between these individuals being found in a lorry, and the debate about free movement within the EU.
- The complainant said that the phrase “lorry load” was inaccurate; he said it dehumanised the people concerned, and exaggerated the number of people found. The complainant said that the misleading headline, juxtaposed with the image of the people in the lorry, was designed to make a political point, and that the article did not clearly distinguish between comment and fact.
- The newspaper accepted that, in fact, video footage showed that the individuals in the lorry had said they were from Iraq and Kuwait, and did not dispute that it was inaccurate to report that they had said they were from Europe. It said that the story was based on copy provided by a reliable agency, which had contained the claim that an individual in the lorry had told a police officer that they were from Europe. This claim was made by an eyewitness, who had also taken the video of the incident. 8. The newspaper said that the individual who prepared the agency copy had listened to the video to corroborate this claim, and was convinced that when the individuals in the lorry were asked where they were from, one of the individuals said “Europe”, in a heavy accent. The newspaper said that the agency made attempts to corroborate this with the police and the Home Office, both of which refused to speculate or confirm the claim. In addition, the newspaper said that it sent its own reporter to the scene of the incident. The reporter spoke to around 10 people in order to corroborate the claims and obtain any relevant CCTV, but no-one had been able to assist. The newspaper denied that it had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate information.
- While acknowledging the headline was inaccurate, the newspaper denied that this was significant, such as to require correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). It said that the individuals were found in the back of an Italian lorry, which it believed had arrived from Belgium. Whether these individuals had begun their journey in Iraq or Kuwait, or elsewhere in Europe, did not make a significant difference to the thrust of the article. Readers would have understood that if these individuals were EU citizens, they would have been able to enter the UK legally, and would not have needed to enter the UK in the back of a lorry. The newspaper said that EU free movement was a significant issue in the referendum campaign because it allowed people from outside the EU to take advantage of the lack of border controls in the Schengen area to travel to Channel ports, where they can attempt to smuggle themselves into the UK.
- The newspaper explained that it was notified of the error by way of a complaint received at around noon on 16 June. The online article was corrected within three hours. The headline of the article was amended to remove the claim that the individuals found in the lorry had said “we are from Europe”. In addition, the article was amended to report that they had said they were from Iraq and Kuwait.
- The newspaper said that it published the following correction, with the agreement of the individual who raised the initial complaint, and prior to receipt of this complaint, on page 2 of the following day’s newspaper: In common with other newspapers, we published a reputable news agency’s story yesterday which said that stowaways intercepted in east London had told police that they were ‘from Europe’. In fact, while they had travelled to the UK in an Italian vehicle from mainland Europe, the migrants told police they were from Iraq and Kuwait. The following footnote was added to the online article: In common with other newspapers, an earlier version of this agency story said that stowaways intercepted in east London had told police that they were ‘from Europe’. In fact, while they had travelled to the UK from mainland Europe, the migrants told police they were from Iraq and Kuwait. - The newspaper said that the correction was published in its clearly marked corrections panel, which has been in place for nearly 5 years. It said that “due prominence” under Clause 1 (ii), does not require equal-prominence, and that in the circumstances of this case, it would not have been proportionate to publish the correction on the front page.
- The newspaper said that the individuals were travelling in the back of a lorry, and that while it was a sad fact that they were being carried as human cargo, the phrase “lorry load” was not inaccurate or misleading. It denied that the use of the phrase dehumanised the individuals in the lorry, or that this was the newspaper’s intention. The newspaper denied that the article failed to distinguish between comment and fact.
- The complainant said that the page 2 correction would not have been seen by people who do not buy the newspaper, but would have seen the front page headline. In addition, he said that the correction failed to address the other aspects of his complaint.
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy
Adjudicated by:
IPSO - Independent Press Standards Organisation
Outcome:
Breach - Sanction: action as offered by publication
"Having upheld a breach of Clause 1 (i), the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. The Committee considered that the breach of Clause 1 had been appropriately remedied by the publication of the correction in print, the amendment of the online article, and the publication of a correction as a footnote. In light of the Committee’s findings, a requirement to republish the correction on the front page would be disproportionate and the Committee did not therefore require any further remedial action."
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=04051-16
Date and newspaper:
17/11/2015, The Times
Case brought by:
A man
Details of case:
- A man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, through a representative, that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply), Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Harassment) and Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article published in 2015.
- The article reported that a defendant had been found not guilty of an allegation of sexual assault; she had been accused of rubbing her breasts against the complainant at a party. The alleged offence took place in Scotland, and the trial had also taken place there. The alleged victim was named in the report.
- The article had appeared in the newspaper’s Scottish edition only, and on the newspaper’s website.
- The complainant said that his identification in the article breached Clause 11. He said that he had been assured by the police in advance that he would not be identified by the media, and the article had caused him significant upset: it was humiliating to be identified in this way, and his family and friends had found out about the incident through reading it in the newspaper. The complainant also said that the publication of his name revealed private information about him – that he considered himself to be a victim of sexual assault – and the article therefore breached Clause 3 also.
- The complainant also said that the article had been biased towards the defendant, and included claims the defendant had made in evidence which the complainant said were inaccurate; this breached Clause 1. He said that he had not been offered a right to reply to the allegations, and that this breached Clause 2. Lastly, he said that publication of the article constituted harassment, in breach of Clause 4.
- When the complainant’s representative contacted the newspaper directly it removed the article from its website, deleted it from its databases, and circulated a note to all staff reminding them of their obligations under both the law and the Editors’ Code, in relation to alleged victims of sexual assault.
- The newspaper noted that it had been legally free to name the complainant, as Scots law does not provide for automatic anonymity for victims and no order had been in place preventing his identification.
- While the newspaper conceded that its article was in breach of the Editors’ Code, it also noted that an argument might be advanced that identification was justified: there is a public interest in reporting proceedings heard in open court, and the sheriff’s remarks in dismissing the case strongly suggested an abuse of process and a waste of public funds. He had said that “16 months after the incident, the complainer decided to report the matter to the police. In the meantime, there had been a falling out about another court case which divided people into camps and caused a lot of acrimony between them…it’s hard to understand the decision-making process by which it was found by the Crown to be in the public interest to pursue this case.” However, the newspaper said that it was not seeking to argue that identification was justified in this case.
- The newspaper said that as the proceedings had been heard in open court, there was no breach of Clause 3.
- The terms of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, which provides for automatic anonymity for victims of specified sexual offences against the law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, do not apply in this case - despite the material being available to readers in England and Wales on the newspaper’s website - as it was a report of offences against Scottish law.
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy (2015)
2 - Opportunity to reply (2015)
3 - Privacy (2015)
4 - Harassment (2015)
16 - Payment of criminals (2015)
Adjudicated by:
IPSO - Independent Press Standards Organisation
Outcome:
Breach - Sanction: Publication of adjudication
"Having upheld the complaint under Clause 3 and Clause 11, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required, taking into account the newspaper’s prompt acknowledgement that it had breached the Code, and the steps already taken by the newspaper in response to the complaint. The Committee has the power to require the publication of a correction and/or adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is to be determined by IPSO. It may also inform the publication that further remedial action is required to ensure that the requirements of the Editors’ Code are met."
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=05190-15
Date and newspaper:
30/12/2015, The Times
Case brought by:
Levi
Details of case:
- Daniel Levi, acting on behalf of Sefton Resources Inc, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Harassment) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an online article headlined “The armed robber who rode into the Wild West”, published on 27 July 2015, and an online article headlined “New questions over armed robber’s funding”, published on 28 July 2015.
- The 27 July article, which had been written by a freelance reporter and a staff reporter, said that the complainant, who was standing down as executive chairman of an oil company called Sefton Resources, had previously been known as David John Hopkins. It stated that the complainant, as Mr Hopkins, had been convicted of armed robbery and had “a reputation for violence and for having links to Britain’s criminal underworld”. It reported that by not disclosing his previous name and by failing to disclose an unspent conviction, the complainant had breached the rules of AIM, a sub-market of the London Stock Exchange.
- The complainant said that before the first article was published, the freelance reporter had attempted to “extract/extort” money from Sefton Resources. He said the reporter had told the company that he was working with a “private investigator”, and that he had sought payment for “investigative services”. He said the reporter and his partner were not “registered private investigators”; they had used subterfuge to request confidential information about him. The omission of the fact that the journalist had attempted to extract money from the company had rendered the article misleading. He also provided an email from the freelance reporter to Sefton Resources’ Financial Consultant, dated 21 August 2015, in which he appeared to ask for assistance in “exposing” the complainant further.
- The complainant also claimed that the journalists had contacted his broker alleging that his passport was fake and that he had been “laundering money”; both reporters had made false allegations to various legal authorities, including the American consulate alleging that his entry to the USA had been illegal; and his ex-partner had received a number of anonymous phone calls at night, including one in which the staff journalist had pretended to be a friend. He said this conduct constituted harassment. In addition, he said that the journalists had obtained private, confidential information about him, including copies of his passport, VAT registration documents, National Insurance Number, and his ex-partner’s contact details.
- The complainant provided emails sent between the reporters in January 2016, following his complaint to IPSO, in which they appeared to discuss the complaint, the proposition to Sefton Resources, and a potential follow-up piece. He argued that the tone of the emails demonstrated that the journalists had a vendetta against him.
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy
3 - Privacy
4 - Harassment
10 - Clandestine devices and subterfuge
Adjudicated by:
IPSO - Independent Press Standards Organisation
Outcome:
No breach - After investigation
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=12317-15
Date and newspaper:
14/04/2014, Oldham Evening Chronicle
Case brought by:
Mr. Chris Shyne
Details of case:
"Mr Chris Shyne complained to the Press Complaints Commission about an article which he considered to have been inaccurate and intrusive in breach of Clauses 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors' Code of Practice. The complainant said the article inaccurately implied that he was dead when, in fact, this was not the case."
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy
2 - Opportunity to reply
5 - Intrusion into grief or shock
Adjudicated by:
PCC - Press Complaints Commission
Outcome:
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of a letter from the complainant.
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=ODg4MA==&type=
Date and newspaper:
24/01/2012, Oldham evening chronicle
Case brought by:
Karen Birch
Details of case:
"Karen Birch complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published an inquest report into the death of her son which contained a number of inaccuracies."
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy
Adjudicated by:
PCC - Press Complaints Commission
10/07/2016, Daily Mail
Case brought by:
Harris
Details of case:
- Lian Harris complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Judge stalked by surrogate mum she told to give up baby”, published in print on 23 June, and “Surrogate mother left judge fearing for her life when she turned up on her doorstep after losing legal battle to keep her child”, published online on 23 June 2016.
- The article reported on the complainant’s Magistrates’ Court sentencing hearing, where it said a 16-month suspended prison sentence was imposed for harassing a family court judge. It said that the complainant had agreed to be surrogate mother for a couple, but later changed her mind to keep the baby; it said that the judge had ruled that the child should stay with the couple, and had “feared for her life” when the complainant had called to her door.
- The complainant said that her child was the subject of ongoing proceedings in the family court, and entitled by law to anonymity. She said that by publishing her name in the court report, the newspaper had identified her child, and breached her child’s right to privacy under Clause 2, as well as the terms of Clause 6.
- The complainant said that she had been sentenced to a 16-week suspended sentence, not a 16-month suspended sentence. She said that it was inaccurate to report that she was a surrogate mother, as the child was biologically hers. She also said that it was inaccurate to report that the judge had “feared for her life”, as this was not mentioned in her witness statement.
- The newspaper said that it did not identify the child in the article. It said that the child’s gender, name or age was not reported, and there was no intrusion into the child’s life. It said that it was heard in court that the complainant was a surrogate mother; it said that the press has a right to publish reports of all matters held in open court, and repeat the language used during those hearings.
- The newspaper accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant was given a 16-month suspended sentence, and said the inaccuracy had come about due to a typing error. However, while it did not consider that the inaccuracy changed the overall meaning of the article, it offered to publish the following correction on page 2 of the newspaper, as well as a footnote to the online article:
A report on 23 June said that the sentence received by Ms Lian Harris at Manchester Magistrates’ Court for harassment was a 16-month suspended prison term. We are happy to clarify that in fact it was a 16-week suspended term. We are also happy to make clear that Ms Harris denies entering into a surrogacy arrangement for her child."
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy
2 - Privacy
3 - Harassment
4 - Intrusion into grief or shock
6 - Children
12 - Discrimination
14 - Confidential Sources
Adjudicated by:
IPSO - Independent Press Standards Organisation
Outcome:
No breach - after investigation
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=04771-16
Date and newspaper:
22/06/2016, Daily Mail
Case brought by:
Dartington
Details of case:
- Jake Dartington complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “We’re from Europe – Let us in!”, published on 16 June 2016. The article was also published online on 15 June with the headline “We’re from Europe – let us in! As politicians squabble over border controls, yet another lorry load of migrants arrives in the UK”.
- The article, which was the only article on the front page, reported that a lorry carrying 11 “stowaways” had been intercepted by police in East London. It was accompanied by a prominent image of the police speaking to the individuals in the back of the lorry. It reported that when these individuals were asked where they were from, they replied “Europe”, a claim which was supported prominently by the sub-headline.
- The article went on to report that the Conservative Party was “in chaos over border controls”. It reported that the Chancellor had said there would be no changes to European Union rules on freedom of movement, while the Home Secretary had said that further reform was needed.
- The complainant said that the individuals found in the lorry were not from Europe: they were trying to enter the UK illegally, and it was therefore clear they were not European citizens. The phrase “We’re from Europe” spuriously implied a connection between these individuals being found in a lorry, and the debate about free movement within the EU.
- The complainant said that the phrase “lorry load” was inaccurate; he said it dehumanised the people concerned, and exaggerated the number of people found. The complainant said that the misleading headline, juxtaposed with the image of the people in the lorry, was designed to make a political point, and that the article did not clearly distinguish between comment and fact.
- The newspaper accepted that, in fact, video footage showed that the individuals in the lorry had said they were from Iraq and Kuwait, and did not dispute that it was inaccurate to report that they had said they were from Europe. It said that the story was based on copy provided by a reliable agency, which had contained the claim that an individual in the lorry had told a police officer that they were from Europe. This claim was made by an eyewitness, who had also taken the video of the incident. 8. The newspaper said that the individual who prepared the agency copy had listened to the video to corroborate this claim, and was convinced that when the individuals in the lorry were asked where they were from, one of the individuals said “Europe”, in a heavy accent. The newspaper said that the agency made attempts to corroborate this with the police and the Home Office, both of which refused to speculate or confirm the claim. In addition, the newspaper said that it sent its own reporter to the scene of the incident. The reporter spoke to around 10 people in order to corroborate the claims and obtain any relevant CCTV, but no-one had been able to assist. The newspaper denied that it had failed to take care not to publish inaccurate information.
- While acknowledging the headline was inaccurate, the newspaper denied that this was significant, such as to require correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). It said that the individuals were found in the back of an Italian lorry, which it believed had arrived from Belgium. Whether these individuals had begun their journey in Iraq or Kuwait, or elsewhere in Europe, did not make a significant difference to the thrust of the article. Readers would have understood that if these individuals were EU citizens, they would have been able to enter the UK legally, and would not have needed to enter the UK in the back of a lorry. The newspaper said that EU free movement was a significant issue in the referendum campaign because it allowed people from outside the EU to take advantage of the lack of border controls in the Schengen area to travel to Channel ports, where they can attempt to smuggle themselves into the UK.
- The newspaper explained that it was notified of the error by way of a complaint received at around noon on 16 June. The online article was corrected within three hours. The headline of the article was amended to remove the claim that the individuals found in the lorry had said “we are from Europe”. In addition, the article was amended to report that they had said they were from Iraq and Kuwait.
- The newspaper said that it published the following correction, with the agreement of the individual who raised the initial complaint, and prior to receipt of this complaint, on page 2 of the following day’s newspaper: In common with other newspapers, we published a reputable news agency’s story yesterday which said that stowaways intercepted in east London had told police that they were ‘from Europe’. In fact, while they had travelled to the UK in an Italian vehicle from mainland Europe, the migrants told police they were from Iraq and Kuwait. The following footnote was added to the online article: In common with other newspapers, an earlier version of this agency story said that stowaways intercepted in east London had told police that they were ‘from Europe’. In fact, while they had travelled to the UK from mainland Europe, the migrants told police they were from Iraq and Kuwait. - The newspaper said that the correction was published in its clearly marked corrections panel, which has been in place for nearly 5 years. It said that “due prominence” under Clause 1 (ii), does not require equal-prominence, and that in the circumstances of this case, it would not have been proportionate to publish the correction on the front page.
- The newspaper said that the individuals were travelling in the back of a lorry, and that while it was a sad fact that they were being carried as human cargo, the phrase “lorry load” was not inaccurate or misleading. It denied that the use of the phrase dehumanised the individuals in the lorry, or that this was the newspaper’s intention. The newspaper denied that the article failed to distinguish between comment and fact.
- The complainant said that the page 2 correction would not have been seen by people who do not buy the newspaper, but would have seen the front page headline. In addition, he said that the correction failed to address the other aspects of his complaint.
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy
Adjudicated by:
IPSO - Independent Press Standards Organisation
Outcome:
Breach - Sanction: action as offered by publication
"Having upheld a breach of Clause 1 (i), the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. The Committee considered that the breach of Clause 1 had been appropriately remedied by the publication of the correction in print, the amendment of the online article, and the publication of a correction as a footnote. In light of the Committee’s findings, a requirement to republish the correction on the front page would be disproportionate and the Committee did not therefore require any further remedial action."
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=04051-16
Date and newspaper:
17/11/2015, The Times
Case brought by:
A man
Details of case:
- A man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, through a representative, that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply), Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Harassment) and Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article published in 2015.
- The article reported that a defendant had been found not guilty of an allegation of sexual assault; she had been accused of rubbing her breasts against the complainant at a party. The alleged offence took place in Scotland, and the trial had also taken place there. The alleged victim was named in the report.
- The article had appeared in the newspaper’s Scottish edition only, and on the newspaper’s website.
- The complainant said that his identification in the article breached Clause 11. He said that he had been assured by the police in advance that he would not be identified by the media, and the article had caused him significant upset: it was humiliating to be identified in this way, and his family and friends had found out about the incident through reading it in the newspaper. The complainant also said that the publication of his name revealed private information about him – that he considered himself to be a victim of sexual assault – and the article therefore breached Clause 3 also.
- The complainant also said that the article had been biased towards the defendant, and included claims the defendant had made in evidence which the complainant said were inaccurate; this breached Clause 1. He said that he had not been offered a right to reply to the allegations, and that this breached Clause 2. Lastly, he said that publication of the article constituted harassment, in breach of Clause 4.
- When the complainant’s representative contacted the newspaper directly it removed the article from its website, deleted it from its databases, and circulated a note to all staff reminding them of their obligations under both the law and the Editors’ Code, in relation to alleged victims of sexual assault.
- The newspaper noted that it had been legally free to name the complainant, as Scots law does not provide for automatic anonymity for victims and no order had been in place preventing his identification.
- While the newspaper conceded that its article was in breach of the Editors’ Code, it also noted that an argument might be advanced that identification was justified: there is a public interest in reporting proceedings heard in open court, and the sheriff’s remarks in dismissing the case strongly suggested an abuse of process and a waste of public funds. He had said that “16 months after the incident, the complainer decided to report the matter to the police. In the meantime, there had been a falling out about another court case which divided people into camps and caused a lot of acrimony between them…it’s hard to understand the decision-making process by which it was found by the Crown to be in the public interest to pursue this case.” However, the newspaper said that it was not seeking to argue that identification was justified in this case.
- The newspaper said that as the proceedings had been heard in open court, there was no breach of Clause 3.
- The terms of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, which provides for automatic anonymity for victims of specified sexual offences against the law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, do not apply in this case - despite the material being available to readers in England and Wales on the newspaper’s website - as it was a report of offences against Scottish law.
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy (2015)
2 - Opportunity to reply (2015)
3 - Privacy (2015)
4 - Harassment (2015)
16 - Payment of criminals (2015)
Adjudicated by:
IPSO - Independent Press Standards Organisation
Outcome:
Breach - Sanction: Publication of adjudication
"Having upheld the complaint under Clause 3 and Clause 11, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required, taking into account the newspaper’s prompt acknowledgement that it had breached the Code, and the steps already taken by the newspaper in response to the complaint. The Committee has the power to require the publication of a correction and/or adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is to be determined by IPSO. It may also inform the publication that further remedial action is required to ensure that the requirements of the Editors’ Code are met."
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=05190-15
Date and newspaper:
30/12/2015, The Times
Case brought by:
Levi
Details of case:
- Daniel Levi, acting on behalf of Sefton Resources Inc, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Harassment) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an online article headlined “The armed robber who rode into the Wild West”, published on 27 July 2015, and an online article headlined “New questions over armed robber’s funding”, published on 28 July 2015.
- The 27 July article, which had been written by a freelance reporter and a staff reporter, said that the complainant, who was standing down as executive chairman of an oil company called Sefton Resources, had previously been known as David John Hopkins. It stated that the complainant, as Mr Hopkins, had been convicted of armed robbery and had “a reputation for violence and for having links to Britain’s criminal underworld”. It reported that by not disclosing his previous name and by failing to disclose an unspent conviction, the complainant had breached the rules of AIM, a sub-market of the London Stock Exchange.
- The complainant said that before the first article was published, the freelance reporter had attempted to “extract/extort” money from Sefton Resources. He said the reporter had told the company that he was working with a “private investigator”, and that he had sought payment for “investigative services”. He said the reporter and his partner were not “registered private investigators”; they had used subterfuge to request confidential information about him. The omission of the fact that the journalist had attempted to extract money from the company had rendered the article misleading. He also provided an email from the freelance reporter to Sefton Resources’ Financial Consultant, dated 21 August 2015, in which he appeared to ask for assistance in “exposing” the complainant further.
- The complainant also claimed that the journalists had contacted his broker alleging that his passport was fake and that he had been “laundering money”; both reporters had made false allegations to various legal authorities, including the American consulate alleging that his entry to the USA had been illegal; and his ex-partner had received a number of anonymous phone calls at night, including one in which the staff journalist had pretended to be a friend. He said this conduct constituted harassment. In addition, he said that the journalists had obtained private, confidential information about him, including copies of his passport, VAT registration documents, National Insurance Number, and his ex-partner’s contact details.
- The complainant provided emails sent between the reporters in January 2016, following his complaint to IPSO, in which they appeared to discuss the complaint, the proposition to Sefton Resources, and a potential follow-up piece. He argued that the tone of the emails demonstrated that the journalists had a vendetta against him.
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy
3 - Privacy
4 - Harassment
10 - Clandestine devices and subterfuge
Adjudicated by:
IPSO - Independent Press Standards Organisation
Outcome:
No breach - After investigation
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=12317-15
Date and newspaper:
14/04/2014, Oldham Evening Chronicle
Case brought by:
Mr. Chris Shyne
Details of case:
"Mr Chris Shyne complained to the Press Complaints Commission about an article which he considered to have been inaccurate and intrusive in breach of Clauses 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors' Code of Practice. The complainant said the article inaccurately implied that he was dead when, in fact, this was not the case."
1 - Accuracy
2 - Opportunity to reply
5 - Intrusion into grief or shock
Adjudicated by:
PCC - Press Complaints Commission
Outcome:
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of a letter from the complainant.
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=ODg4MA==&type=
Date and newspaper:
24/01/2012, Oldham evening chronicle
Case brought by:
Karen Birch
Details of case:
"Karen Birch complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published an inquest report into the death of her son which contained a number of inaccuracies."
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy
Adjudicated by:
PCC - Press Complaints Commission
Outcome:
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following correction and apology:
Chef inquest
A report of an inquest in the Oldham Evening Chronicle (November 10) headlined "Chef's final Facebook message" reported that Mr David Birch had been told he had lost his job. We accept that there was some ambiguity regarding whether this was the case, although this was stated in evidence at the inquest. We also incorrectly reported the location as being in the back garden and accept that neighbours did not help paramedics in an attempt to revive him. We apologise for any distress caused.
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following correction and apology:
Chef inquest
A report of an inquest in the Oldham Evening Chronicle (November 10) headlined "Chef's final Facebook message" reported that Mr David Birch had been told he had lost his job. We accept that there was some ambiguity regarding whether this was the case, although this was stated in evidence at the inquest. We also incorrectly reported the location as being in the back garden and accept that neighbours did not help paramedics in an attempt to revive him. We apologise for any distress caused.
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NzYyMA==&type=
Date and newspaper:
No date, Oldham evening chronicle
Case brought by:
Mr R Capewell
Details of case:
"Mr R Capewell of Failsworth complained that an article had inaccurately described an eight mile stretch of road linking the Snake Pass and Holmfirth as the A6024. He was also concerned that the newspaper had not responded directly to his complaint."
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy
Adjudicated by:
PCC - Press Complaints Commission
Date and newspaper:
No date, Oldham evening chronicle
Case brought by:
Mr R Capewell
Details of case:
"Mr R Capewell of Failsworth complained that an article had inaccurately described an eight mile stretch of road linking the Snake Pass and Holmfirth as the A6024. He was also concerned that the newspaper had not responded directly to his complaint."
Clauses alleged to have been contravened:
1 - Accuracy
Adjudicated by:
PCC - Press Complaints Commission
Outcome:
"The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published a clarification making clear that the road in question was not the A6024."
"The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published a clarification making clear that the road in question was not the A6024."
Comments
Post a Comment