Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 00701-23 McAllister v The Bolton News
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Rebecca McAllister complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
that The Bolton News breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and
Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Mum conned people into taking beauty courses”, published on 21
December 2022.
2. The
article reported on a court case in which the complainant had “admit[ed] two
counts of unfair commercial practices and three breaches of EU cosmetic
regulations”. It reported: “a woman who took over the family business sold
teeth whitener in breach of regulations and conned people into taking
qualifications she was not approved to deliver”. It went on to state the
complainant “took over the family business and was director of [two businesses]
from July, 2017 until they were dissolved in October, 2019.” It said the court
had heard the complainant “had been visited in previous enterprises by [a local
council] and told not to sell teeth whitener with more than 0.1 per cent
hydrogen peroxide in it” but that “when [local council] staff visited her
premises […] in June and July, 2018 they found products in breach of this
rule.” The court also heard “in October, 2017 she sold two women courses in
beauty which she claimed were National Vocational Qualifications [NVQS] but she
was not certified to deliver these” and that “the first woman paid £1,500 for
this and the second paid £2,800”.
3. The
article said the complainant’s lawyer had stated “she had no means and was the
carer for four children including one who was seriously unwell”. It also
reported that the judge had said the complainant had “no means whatsoever” and
so they would not “make an order for payment of costs.” The judge, according to
the article, instead “imposed a community order to run for three years and
ordered her to attend at 45 rehabilitation activity requirement days.”
4. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the
headline “Bolton: Mum taken to court over courses and teeth products”.
5. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as she
denied she had “conned” anyone. She accepted that she had pleaded guilty, but
said she had only put forward a guilty plea because of a deal made with the
council. She said that, despite the terms of the plea, she had been qualified
to deliver the NVQs.
6. The
complainant also said the article was inaccurate because the two former clients
had actually paid £500 and £400 for their NVQs; she said the article’s figure
of £2,800 was actually the total amount paid by both clients, rather than what
one client had paid – which was what the article claimed. The complainant then
said the article was inaccurate because the “[visit] in previous enterprises by
Salford Council” took place in 2013 not 2017/8, as reported by the article.
7. She
also said the article was inaccurate because her business was not a “family
business” and because the judge had not required her to go to rehab. She also
said that the article was not balanced; focused too much on the prosecution’s
arguments; and omitted information which she considered important to the
article – such as her reasons for pleading guilty and the positives that had
come out of the case.
8. The
complainant also said the article was in breach of Clause 2 because the article
included her partial address and information about her child’s health. She also
said that the article identified her child in breach of Clause 9.
9. The
publication did not accept it breached Clause 1 by reporting that the
complainant had “conned” people. It said that, according to the court, the
complainant had sold a course which she was not qualified to deliver, and that
people paid money for her course expecting a qualification which they did not
obtain.
10. The
publication did not accept the figure of £2,800 was inaccurate. It said this
figure had been heard in court and supplied the reporter’s notes to support its
position, which it said had been taken during court proceedings; these notes
included the disputed figures. It also denied it was inaccurate to refer to the
business as a “family business”, and cited the notes which said “she took over
a sole directorship from her father”.
11. The
publication said the article did not state the complainant had gone to rehab.
It had reported she had been ordered to attend 45 rehabilitation activity
requirement days, which did not appear to be in dispute. It also did not accept
the article had omitted information that would have made the article
balanced – it said the article covered
the complainant’s mitigating circumstances such as her lack of means.
12. The
publication did not accept it had breached Clause 2 by reporting the address of
the complainant or her child’s medical condition. It said this information had
been heard in an open court and used as mitigation by the defence.
13.
Where all the information about the complainant’s child included in the article
had been heard in open court, the publication argued it was therefore of
genuine relevance. It did not accept, therefore, that referring to the
complainant’s child breached the terms of Clause 9.
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.
Clause 9
(Reporting of Crime)*
i)
Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not
generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely
relevant to the story.
ii)
Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of
children under the age of 18 who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should
not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
iii)
Editors should generally avoid naming children under the age of 18 after arrest
for a criminal offence but before they appear in a youth court unless they can
show that the individual’s name is already in the public domain, or that the
individual (or, if they are under 16, a custodial parent or similarly
responsible adult) has given their consent. This does not restrict the right to
name juveniles who appear in a crown court, or whose anonymity is lifted.
Findings
of the Committee
14. The
Committee firstly noted the role of the newspaper was to report accurately on
court proceedings; it was not responsible for the accuracy of the allegations
themselves.
15. The
Committee considered whether it was inaccurate to report the complainant had
“conned” people. The Committee noted that conned is to an extent a subjective
term. However, this did not mean that there was no obligation for the
publication to demonstrate that there was a factual basis for this description
of the legal finding against the complainant. In addition, a headline claim
should be supported by the text of the article, in line with the publication’s
obligation under Clause 1.
16. The
complainant did not dispute that she had pleaded guilty to charges of “two
counts of unfair commercial practices and three breaches of EU cosmetic
regulations in court”. While the Committee noted the complainant’s position –
that she pleaded guilty because she was offered a plea deal by the council –
this did not change the fact that she had been found guilty of these charges,
the nature of which was made clear by the article’s reference to her “admitting
two counts of unfair commercial practices and three breaches of EU cosmetic
regulations”. Where the charges she had pleaded guilty to pertained to
breaching commercial regulations, and the complainant did not dispute she had
profited from these breaches, the Committee did not consider it unreasonable to
characterise this as the complainant having “conned” people. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on this point.
17. The
Committee then considered whether the article had inaccurately reported on the
court case against the complainant by reporting the amount the two women had
paid for their NVQs: “the first woman paid £1,500 for this and the second paid
£2,800”. As the publication was able to supply the reporter’s notes to support
its position that this figure had been heard in court, the Committee was
satisfied the publication had taken care not to report inaccurate information
on this point, and that the article did not report on the court case in a
significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted way. There was therefore no
breach of Clause 1.
18.
Likewise, there were notes from the court reporter that stated the complainant
“took over a sole directorship from her father”, and the complainant did not
dispute that this was the case, and as such the Committee did not consider it
inaccurate to refer to the complainant’s business as being a “family business”.
Furthermore, as the article did not report the complainant had attended rehab
and had instead stated she had been ordered “to attend at 45 rehabilitation
activity requirement days” – which she did not dispute – the Committee did not
consider the article to be inaccurate on this point in the manner suggested by
the complainant. Regarding the complainant’s point that the previous visits
from the council had not taken place in 2017 or 18, but 2013, the Committee
noted the article at no point stated the visits had taken place in 2017 or
2018, but that she had been visited “at previous premises”, at some point
before June and July, 2018, and this point was therefore also not inaccurate in
the manner suggested by the complainant.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
19. The
Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns the article was not
balanced, focused too much on the prosecution’s arguments, and omitted
information which she considered important to the article – such as her reasons
for pleading guilty and the positives that had come out of the case. Under the
Editors’ Code, articles do not have to be balanced, and newspapers have the
right to choose which pieces of information they publish, as long as the
information within the article does not breach the Code. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on these points.
20. The
Committee turned to the question of whether the article breached Clause 2. It
noted that neither party disputed that the information about the complainant’s
address and child had been disclosed in open court. Unless a court puts
restrictions on reporting, newspapers are allowed to publish information that
has been made public in open court; as the information has therefore entered
the public domain, publishing it did not intrude into the private life of the
complainant. There was no breach of Clause 2.
21. The
Committee finally considered whether Clause 9 had been breached. Clause 9
states that friends and relative of those convicted or accused of crime should
generally not be identified, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.
Where the complainant’s child had been mentioned in the complainant’s defence
in court, they were clearly relevant to the story of the article, which was a
report of court proceedings against the complainant. The Committee also noted
that, no identifying information, such as the name or age of the child, was
included in the article. There was no breach of the Clause on this point.
Conclusions
22. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
23. N/A
Date
complaint received: 03/01/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 04/08/2023