Decision of the Complaints Committee – 08527-19 O’Nion v
The Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Daniel O’Nion complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “GPS data shows container
visited trafficking hotspot”, published on 2 November 2019.
2. The article reported on the route taken by the shipping
container in which 39 migrants had died in October 2019. The article reported
that GPS data showed that the container had “stopped down a dirt track in Essex
known locally as a notorious people trafficking hotspot” and that “data also
appears to show that on its return the container stopped at D&J Exports, a
transport yard”. The article went on to provide a quote from a third party, who
they described as “the owner of D&J Exports”: “We have no record of it
being here. We’ve checked our CCTV but can’t see anything. We’d be happy to
hand it to police but they’ve not visited us.”
3. The article also appeared online on the same day under
the headline: “Lorry deaths: GPS data shows container visited trafficking
hotspot”. It was in substantially the same format.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1 for several reasons. Firstly he said that the container
never stopped at his transport yard, nor had his yard ever been described as a
“people trafficking hotspot”. Secondly, he said that the article had
inaccurately described a third party as the owner of D&J Exports, when he
was the owner, and the third party had nothing to do with the business. He also
said that the quote attributed the owner of D&J Exports had not been given
by him. When the complainant had spoken to the reporter, he had told him that
he was not to be quoted.
5. When the complaint was referred to the newspaper, a
correction was published which quoted the complainant as saying “I would never
get involved in people smuggling”. The complainant said this breached Clause 1
as he had never said this, and even if he had, the conversation was off the
record.
6. The publication said it did not accept a breach of Clause
1. It noted that the article said that the lorry stopped within the
complainant’s premises, but that the data “appears to show” that it stopped at
the yard. The article also reported it had stopped “down a dirt track” next to
D&J Exports. A map included in both the articles also highlighted this. It
was this area that was referred to as a “trafficking hotspot” and not the
complainant’s premises.
7. The publication accepted that a quote by a third party,
who owned another nearby business, had been conflated with those of the
complainant. However, it said that this conflation had not caused harm to
either individual. After receiving the complaint from IPSO the newspaper
published the following correction in its corrections and clarifications column
on page 30, as a footnote to the online article, and in the online corrections
and clarifications column:
Because of an editing error, we wrongly said that [the third
party], the owner of [a third business], was the owner of D&J Exports, and
suggested that his remark about CCTV applied to that company rather than his
own. D&J Exports is owned by Daniel O’Nion, who told our reporter he would
never get involved in people smuggling. Our report (News, Nov 2) was not
intended to suggest that the “notorious people-trafficking hotspot” where the
container lorry stopped was inside the premises of D&J Exports. As our map
made clear, the lorry stopped on a dirt track beside the company’s yard.
8. The publication said that the reporter who spoke with the
complainant confirmed that the complainant had said that he “would never get
involved in people smuggling” and that he had no recollection of the
complainant asking for that comment, or any aspect of the conversation, to be
off the record. However, as a gesture of goodwill, during the investigation the
publication offered to update the correction online and republish the
correction in its corrections and clarifications column in the print version as
follows:
Correction and apology: We wrongly said that [the third
party], the owner of [a third business], was the owner of D&J Exports, and
suggested that his remark about CCTV applied to that company rather than his
own. D&J Exports is an export yard owned by Daniel O’Nion. Our report was
not intended to suggest that the “notorious people-trafficking hotspot” where
the container lorry stopped was inside the premises of D&J Exports, or that
the company has any involvement in people smuggling. We apologise to Mr O’Nion
for any distress caused.
Relevant Code Provisions
Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
9. It was accepted that the container in which 39 migrants
had died had not entered the complainant’s transport yard. Rather, the GPS data
had indicated that it had stopped on a “dirt track” beside the premises. While
the article had also stated that the lorry had stopped on a “dirt track next
to” D&J exports, the Committee found that the assertion that the lorry had
stopped “at D&J Exports” had misleadingly suggested that the lorry had
entered the complainant’s business premises. It could have been understood from
the article that these premises were the “notorious people trafficking hotspot”
described in the article. This represented a failure to take care over the
accuracy of the article in breach of Clause 1(i). The inaccuracy was
significant and a correction was required to meet the terms of Clause 1(ii).
10. The article also reported that a third party owned
D&J Exports and attributed a quote to him. The third party, who had given
the quote, was in fact the owner of a different business in the area and the newspaper,
in an editing error, had conflated the two business owners. This represented a
failure to take care in breach of Clause 1(i). Incorrectly naming the owner of
the business named was also a significant inaccuracy. Therefore, both of these
aspects were found to require a correction under Clause 1(ii).
11. The Committee noted that there was a dispute between the
publication and the complainant as to whether the complainant had said that he
“would never get involved in people smuggling”, as stated in the published
correction, and as to whether the comments had been made during a conversation
that was off the record. It was regrettable that there was a misunderstanding
on this basis, however, the published correction did not misrepresent his
position on the matter.
12. The publication accepted that the article was inaccurate
and amended the online article the day after the complaint was referred by
IPSO, with a corrective footnote online and a correction printed in the
newspaper’s established corrections and clarifications column. The
publication's offer identified the inaccuracy, set out the correct position and
was offered promptly. The publication then offered to amend the correction to
reflect the complainant’s concerns after the phone call with the reporter, and
added an apology. The Committee welcomed this second correction. There was no
breach of Clause 1(ii).
Conclusions
13. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial Action Required
14. N/A
Date complaint received: 02/11/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/02/2020