Decision of the Complaints Committee – 00624-20 Oldfield
v North Wales Pioneer
Summary of Complaint
1. Carol Oldfield complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the North Wales Pioneer breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Stonemason's falling out with Colwyn Bay couple lands him in court” published
on 31 January 2020.
2. The article reported on the court case of a stonemason
who had assaulted a couple after failing to complete a job for them and to
repay money the couple had loaned him. The article reported that “David and
Carol Oldfield distributed flyers to neighbours and others warning them not to
employ [the defendant] but what happened when they confronted him at his place
of work landed the 53-year-old ex-soldier in court.” The incident was reported
as occurring in September 2019. The article said that the couple had captured
footage of the stonemason using “abusive language” and that he ”dropped a
spade” on the other man’s foot. The article included a quote from the defendant
which stated “In my opinion they came there to harass, humiliate and hinder my
work in a public place”. The article ended by reporting that both charges had
been proved, that the woman’s evidence had been “very credible” whilst the
stonemason’s had “been inconsistent” and that the stonemason was to be
sentenced shortly. The article had appeared online, and was deleted the morning
of the sentencing.
3. The complainant, one of the couple who had been
assaulted, said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She said
that it was inaccurate to report that she and her husband had “distributed
leaflets”. She said that the leaflets had been distributed after the assault
had taken place whereas the article gave the misleading impression that the
leaflets had been given out prior to the attack and therefore justified it. She
said that the court had found that the leaflets were not relevant and were not
to be included as evidence. In addition, the complainant said that the content
of the leaflets had not been read out in court, so the newspaper was unaware of
their content; the leaflets had not warned people “not to employ” the
defendant, but not to pay him in advance, or loan him any money. She also said
it was inaccurate to report that her partner had distributed the flyers, as
only she had been cross-examined about them, although she did not deny that
they had both distributed these leaflets after the incident.
4. The complainant also said that the article was inaccurate
in that it was biased in favour of the defendant. She said that referring to
the leaflets, when they had been held to be inadmissible, in addition to naming
the defendant as an ex-soldier; reporting that he felt harassed by the couple;
describing what she called a “physical assault” as “abusive language”; and
reporting that he had “dropped a spade”, when it was deliberate and not accidental,
had the cumulative effect of making her and her partner seem to be to blame for
the incident and gave the impression that they had attacked the defendant.
5. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It
had sent a court reporter to the court and it provided the notes that had been
taken, as well as an email from the defence solicitor who said he had no note
or recollection of the leaflets being held to be inadmissible. The solicitor
did say, however, that the leaflets were found to be a possible mitigating
factor, but were not relevant to the court finding the defendant guilty. The
court reporter’s notes also made reference to the leaflets and that it had been
heard in court that one of the leaflets had been put on the defendant’s landlord’s
van in July, months prior to the attack. In addition, the court reporter’s
notes said that the defendant had said in his evidence: “Letters were put
through the letter boxes of vulnerable people I intended to work for” and also
stated that the defence solicitor had presented the leaflets as a “warning”.
The publication said that, despite the leaflets not being read out in court,
this information was sufficient for it to characterise the leaflets as a
“warning”. It also said that the defendant had said that “they” had distributed
the leaflets; it was therefore not inaccurate for it to have reported that both
the complainant and her partner had distributed them.
6. The publication said that it had only published
information that was provided in court, and even if the complainant disagreed
with what was heard, such as claims from the defendant, it had accurately
reported it. It had also mirrored the language that was used in court, such as
that the defendant had “dropped a spade” and “abusive language” had been used.
It also said that it had included the defendant’s background as an ex-soldier
purely for context.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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
8. The article had suggested that the complainant and her
partner had distributed the leaflets before confronting the defendant, which
was when the attack took place. The Committee acknowledged that there was a
disagreement between the parties about when the leaflets had been given out.
However, the publication had provided notes which indicated that it was heard
in court that at least one of these leaflets had been distributed prior to the
attack, and the complainant had not disputed that one had been given to the
defendant’s landlord in July. In light of this, and the fact that it was
accepted that leaflets had been distributed and this had been heard in court,
there was no failure to take care and no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
9. The publication had provided notes which recorded that
the defence solicitor had described the leaflets as a “warning”. The
complainant had also accepted that the leaflets had advised others not to pay
the defendant in advance, nor to give him loans. While the leaflets may not
have explicitly advised against hiring the defendant, they had said that he
should not be paid in advance. Given that the complainants accepted they
advised people not to employ the stonemason without safeguards, it was not
inaccurate to characterise this is as “warning [others] not to employ” him..
Furthermore, while only the complainant had been cross-examined about the
leaflets in court, the Committee did not find it significant to report that
both her and her partner had distributed them. It was therefore not inaccurate
to report that the leaflets had warned people not to employ the defendant, and
there was no breach of Clause 1 on either of these points.
10. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s concerns
that the article was not balanced, and was biased towards the defendant. The
Code does not require balance, but that publications take care not to publish
inaccurate and misleading information. In this case, the publication had used
language from the court case, as presented by the solicitors, and was entitled
to report comments from the defendant, even if the complainant did not agree
with them. In addition, the article made clear that the defendant had been
found guilty. On this basis, there were no inaccuracies, and therefore no
breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
11. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
12. N/A
Date complaint received: 02/02/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/05/2020
Back to ruling listing