05758-25 Jones v The Sun

Summary of Complaint

1. Kevin Jones complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “TOUGHEST BOOZER IN BRITAIN' UP FOR SALE”, published on 28 October 2025.

2. The article reported that a pub had been put up for sale. It reported that the pub “was closed after becoming a den for shoplifters to sell stolen steaks and booze.” It also reported that the “Police had issued previous landlord” – the complainant – “with a warning notice over the stolen goods racket. Licensing chiefs accepted police evidence that for years the pub had been central to the shoplifting racket.”

3. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline “DRINK UP ‘Toughest pub in Britain’ is on market for modest 6-figure sum after closure following crime probe by cops”.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it reported the pub was closed. He said the premises had not been closed and remained open pending the outcome of an ongoing licensing appeal.

5. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported the pub had closed “after becoming a den for shoplifters to sell stolen steaks and booze”. He said the only incident involved a single purchase outside the pub, for which he accepted a police caution. To support his position, he supplied a warning notice from the police, as well as extracts from a transcript of the licensing hearing. He said these documents demonstrated that “police evidence was speculative and not backed by evidence”.

6. The warning notice set out the reason that it was being issued: “The reason for this is based around information that has been brought to the attention of South Wales Police once again surrounding items involved in retail theft from stores / shops within Merthyr Town centre being sold to patrons from within the [pub].” It also stated: “I am continuously hearing information from retailers, members of the public etc that the [pub] is at the forefront where stolen items from the retail community is the place to go if you are a criminal and want to offload the goods you’ve taken. This needs to change.”

7. The police’s warning notice also specified the details of an that incident occurred on 5 October 2024 “where a bag full of steaks was taken by a male and an accomplice […] and have attended the [pub] to sell the steaks.”

8. According to the licensing hearing transcript, the police detailed three, incidents one of which involved “a prolific shoplifter attend[ing]” the pub “to sell stolen goods from Farmfoods”. It also said that, on one occasion, the complainant:

“provided a full and frank admissin to purchasing these stolen items. During the interview [the complainant] was shown a copy of the warning notice issued to him by me, relating to the stolen goods being sold to patrons of the [pub] to which he confirmed he had received it. On the 20th May 2025, [the complainant] received a police caution for the offence of handling stolen goods”

9. According to the hearing transcript, the complainant had said: “On the day of the offence, the shoplifter was outside the premises and in a moment of madness, I didn't even look what he was selling. […] Uh wine was in a... I don't even sell wine in the pub. I don't drink. And it was just a complete moment of madness.”

10. The police further noted: “Further to this, there was a report to the police most recently on the 17th of June, of a prolific shoplifter attending outside the Wyndham, selling a joint of beef which was stolen from Farmfoods.”

11. After the article was published, the complainant appealed against the licensing committee’s decision. He provided a copy of the appeal judgment, which stated “[w]hilst the police speculate that lots [of incidents] may be happening inside [the pub] there is actually no evidence to support this”. It went on to note: “[n]o doubt if the premises remained closed those customers would simply remove themselves elsewhere”. The complainant’s appeal was granted.

12. Further, the complainant said it was inaccurate to report: “Licensing chiefs accepted police evidence that for years the pub had been central to the shoplifting racket.” He said there was no such finding or proof of ongoing criminal activity, and he had received only a single caution for an incident that happened outside the pub.

13. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to report the police issued him with “a warning notice over the stolen goods racket.” He said the warning letter was only advisory, and relied on unverified information that could not be corroborated.

14. In addition, he said the headline of the online article was inaccurate to state the pub was closed “following crime probe by cops”. He denied there was any crime probe or prosecution.

15. The complainant said the publication failed to contact him for comment and denied him an opportunity to provide factual clarification. He said the omission of his position made the coverage one-sided and unfair.

16. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2 because the article named him and included details of his police caution. He said the information was published without his consent and there was no justification for the publication of this information, as it had no bearing on public safety or interest.

17. The publication did not accept the article breached the Code. Turning first to Clause 1, it said there could not be any dispute that the pub lost its license because of illegal activities in which it was involved. It also provided a press release, which said the pub was for sale and included photographs which the publication said showed the pub was in “extreme disrepair”. This, it said, showed that the pub had been closed and listed for sale. It added that the pub was listed as being closed on online searches prior to the article’s publication, and that when it tried to call the pub to get more details, the phone was not answered. The publication said it was reasonable to expect a working pub that is open and serving customers to answer its telephone.

18. It added it was accurate to report that “stolen steaks and booze” were sold at the pub, given the police warning notice and licensing hearing both referenced steaks and alcohol being sold at the location.

19. It also considered that the question whether stolen items were handled or exchanged within or outside the pub was not a significant distinction. The publication said that, in any event, the police – in its warning notice and during the licensing hearing – described the pub as a go-to pub in town for offloading stolen goods, and had said the incident where stolen steaks were sold happened “within” the pub and that stolen goods would be distributed among patrons at the pub.

20. The publication said the appeal findings relied on by the complainant post-dated the article’s publication, and therefore could not have been taken into account during the article’s preparation. It said that the article accurately reported the initial decision of the licensing committee, which was that the pub should be closed. It said it was not required to carry out its own judicial investigation to query the committee’s decision, and was entitled to report on the outcome of the proceedings.

21. Turning to the online headline, the publication said the word “probe” did not have a meaning specific to criminal investigations, and the article did not report that there had been any criminal charges or convictions. Rather, it made clear that the pub’s licence was withdrawn due to police concerns about the handling of stolen goods at the pub. It added that the police had obviously investigated the matter, given the complainant accepted a police caution for the crime of handling stolen goods and a warning notice had been issued.

22. Notwithstanding its position that there had been no breach of the Code, as a gesture of goodwill and on 19 November 2025 – 12 days after it was first notified of the complaint – the publication offered to publish the following wording in its 'Corrections and Clarifications' section in the newspaper:

“The Wyndham Arms did not close after the council revoked its licence in July, as a 28 Oct article reported (" 'Toughest boozer in Britain' up for sale"). The revocation was appealed and the pub has remained open pending the hearing of the appeal in December. We are happy to clarify.”

23. It also offered publish the following correction as a footnote to the online version of the article:

“UPDATE: The pub did not close, as this article originally reported. The landlord appealed its licence revocation and it has remained open pending the hearing of the appeal in December. We are happy to clarify, and the article has been amended.”

24. On the same day that it received the appeal judgment, the publication further offered to add the following wording to its correction:

“The Wyndham Arms did not close after the council revoked its licence in July, as a 28 Oct article reported ('Toughest boozer in Britain' up for sale’). On appeal after publication, a judge found that there was no evidence for claims of criminal activity at the pub, and that the revocation was disproportionate.”

25. Turning to the complainant’s privacy concerns, raised under Clause 2, the publication said the evidence put to the licensing committee, including the police warning notice, was heard publicly. It therefore considered the complainant did not have any reasonable expectation of privacy over the matters reported in the article.

26. The complainant disputed that the publication did its best to contact him or made any meaningful attempt to clarify the trading status of the premises.

Relevant Clause 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.

Clause 2 (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.

Findings of the Committee

27. The Committee first considered the complainant’s concern that the article inaccurately reported the pub was closed. The Committee noted the publication provided various materials, including the press release with accompanying photographs, search results, and online listings, to support its claim that the pub was not open and trading at the time of publication. A journalist acting on its behalf had also attempted to call the pub to clarify whether it was closed, but the phone had not been answered. Given this, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken due care over the accuracy of its reporting on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

28. The Committee also noted that, while the complainant said that the pub was open at the time he made his complaint, it was unclear – particularly in light of the judge’s reference to the pub “remain[ing] closed” in the appeal judgment – whether it had closed for a period following the original licensing decision, before reopening while appeal proceedings were ongoing. Given this, the Committee did not consider that there was sufficient information before it to find that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

29. The Committee then considered whether the article was inaccurate to report the police issued “a warning notice over the stolen goods racket”. It noted the warning notice clearly stated it had been issued due to concerns about “items involved in retail theft from stores / shops within Merthyr Town centre being sold to patrons from within the” pub. It also said the police heard “information from retailers, members of the public etc that the [pub] is […] is the place to go if you are a criminal and want to offload the goods you’ve taken”. The Committee therefore considered there was sufficient basis to report the warning notice was issued in relation to the handling of stolen goods at the pub.

30. While the complainant had said the notice was only advisory, the Committee noted the article did not report otherwise. It also considered the publication was entitled to report on the content of the notice provided it did so accurately. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

31. The Committee turned next to whether the article was inaccurate to report that “[l]icensing chiefs accepted police evidence that for years the pub had been central to the shoplifting racket”.

32. The Committee noted the police set out several incidences where the pub was associated with handling of stolen goods during the licensing hearing. It was therefore satisfied that the pub had been associated with shoplifting on multiple occasions. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider the article was inaccurate to report “[l]icensing chiefs accepted police evidence that for years the pub had been central to the shoplifting racket”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

33. The Committee noted the complainant disputed the evidence given by the police during the licensing hearing and said the appeal judge found them to be speculative. However, the Committee was clear that the publication was responsible for accurately reporting the outcome of the licensing hearing – it was not responsible for the accuracy of the evidence presented during the hearing, nor was it under any duty to carry out an investigation of the ruling.

34. The Committee then considered whether it was inaccurate to report the pub was closed “after becoming a den for shoplifters to sell stolen steaks and booze”.

35. The Committee noted that the police, in its warning notice and during the licensing hearing, had said that stolen meat was sold at or near the pub on multiple occasions, and that the complainant admitted during the licensing hearing that he purchased stolen wine. The Committee considered, therefore, that it was not inaccurate to report that the pub became “a den for shoplifters to sell stolen steaks and booze”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

36. The Committee noted the complainant was concerned about the use of the word “crime probe” in the headline of the article. It noted that the word “probe” did not necessarily mean there was a formal criminal investigation, and that this term can have many meanings In any event, where the complainant accepted he received a police caution in relation to handling of stolen goods, and where the police made an application to the licensing committee to revoke the licence of the pub, the Committee considered the police had looked into and investigated into the matter. As such, it considered the word “crime probe” was a fair characterisation of the police’s action and did not identify any breach of Clause 1.

37. While the complainant said the article was one-sided, the Editors’ Code of Practice does not address the issues of bias, and articles do not need to be balanced as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

38. The complainant was also concerned that the publication failed to contact him for comment. The Code does not require newspapers to reach out to people for comment, unless this is needed to ensure care is taken not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information. Where no such information appeared in the article, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

39. Turning to Clause 2, the Committee noted the complainant’s name and details of his caution were disclosed in the public licensing hearing. Newspapers are allowed to publish information that has been made public; this information was already in the public domain, so publishing it did not mean that the publication had not respected the complainant’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

Conclusions

40. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 28/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/04/2026