Decision of the Complaints Committee 01240-14 Hope v
Daily Mirror
Summary of
complaint
1. Jonathan Hope complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Mirror had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Football 'agent' who
claimed he brokered Danny Welbeck Arsenal deal exposed as fraud with child porn
conviction”, published on 10 August 2014.
2. The article reported that the complainant had
“falsely” claimed that he had brokered a transfer of the footballer Danny
Welbeck in an appearance on Radio 5 Live. It also reported that the complainant
had a previous conviction for downloading child pornography, and that the
parents of children involved with a youth football team sponsored by the
complainant had been “disgusted” when this had been discovered. It also
reported that despite his conviction, he had visited an orphanage in 2012.
3. The complainant said that contrary to the claims in
the article he had been trying to broker a deal between Manchester United and
Tottenham Hotspur, although he had not spoken to Mr Welbeck or his
representative directly. It had therefore been inaccurate to describe him as a
“fraud”. He also said that the article had misrepresented his role with the
youth football club; he was not actively involved with the club and did not
sponsor the team, although his name had been put on the back of the shirts as a
gesture for his having found the team a sponsor. He also said that the article
had inaccurately reported that the orphanage had struggled to contact him after
his visit. The complainant expressed concern that the journalist had used his
involvement in football as a means to disclose the fact that he had a spent
criminal conviction.
4. The newspaper said that prior to publication, the
journalist had made approaches to the youth football club, BBC Five Live, a
number of football clubs said to have been involved in the deal, and Danny
Welbeck’s representative. The complainant was also asked for his comments, in
response to which he had shown the journalist messages purporting to be from
Tottenham Hotspur’s owner, and said that his conviction was “years ago and
there’s no story here”.
5. Danny Welbeck’s representatives had contacted Radio 5
Live to say that the complainant had not been involved in the deal, even as a
middleman. A representative of the Welbeck brothers told the newspaper “I will
spell out the position of the Welbecks so there is absolutely no room for
doubt. Jonathan Hope is a person we have never heard of, until he went on
national radio”. The newspaper noted that the complainant had provided text
messages he had sent to a representative at a football club which showed that
he had claimed to have spoken to Mr Welbeck, and gave the inaccurate impression
that he was acting with the player‘s direct authority. It had not been
inaccurate to describe him as a “fraud”.
6. The newspaper said that as the complainant’s name had
appeared on the back of the youth football club’s shirts, it had not been
significantly misleading to report that he sponsored the club. The newspaper
said that it was entitled to publish details of the complainant’s conviction, particularly
as it was a matter of public concern given his involvement with the children’s
football club.
7. The newspaper raised serious concerns about the
conduct of the complainant during the course of Ipso’s investigation, including
allegations that the complainant had sent abusive messages over the internet to
the reporter who had provided material for this report and others under
complaint. These allegations (denied by the complainant) formed the basis of a
complaint to the police and the matter remains under the consideration of the
Procurator Fiscal as of the date this decision was issued.
Relevant Code Provisions
8. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
Findings of the Committee
9. The complainant had appeared on the radio, and was
interviewed on the premise that he was “the man brokering a deal” for Danny
Welbeck, and he had not corrected that description of him. During the course of
the interview he had suggested that he was actively engaged in the deal, and
was in direct discussion with the parties. The reporter subsequently contacted
the complainant and the football clubs concerned. As such, the Committee was satisfied
that there had not been a failure to take care over the accuracy of the
article; there was no breach of Clause 1 (i). In circumstances in which the
football clubs and the player’s representatives had denied that the complainant
had any involvement in the deal, or with the player, the newspaper was entitled
to its view that the complainant had misrepresented his role during the
interview and was therefore a “fraud”. The basis on which this allegation was
made had been set out in the article; it had also included the complainant’s
position that he was acting with the authority of Tottenham Hotspur. There was
no breach of the Code on this point.
10. As the complainant accepted that his name had
featured on the football kit of the youth team in response to his arranging the
team’s sponsorship, it had not been significantly misleading to state that he
had sponsored the club. There was no breach of the Code.
11. In the context of concerns that the complainant had
been involved with an orphanage despite having a criminal conviction relating
to child pornography, whether or not the orphanage had subsequently struggled
to contact the complainant had not been a significant detail such as to warrant
correction under the terms of the Code.
12. The selection of material for publication is a matter
for the discretion of individual editors, provided that such editorial
decisions do not engage the terms of the Editors’ Code. It had not been
inaccurate to report that the complainant had a previous criminal conviction,
and in the circumstances, there had been a public interest in disclosing this
fact. There was no breach of the Code.
Conclusions
13. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 27/03/2015
Date decision issued: 15/05/2015