Decision of the Complaints Committee 01319-14 Hawk v mirror.co.uk
1. Maddison Hawk complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Accountant funded her
25k plastic surgery bill by selling fake GHD hair straighteners”, published on
15 October 2014.
2. The article reported that the complainant had been
convicted of fraud and had recently been fined over £8,000 after Trading
Standards inspectors found that she had offered fake electrical hair appliances
for sale. It also noted that she had previously spent £25,000 on cosmetic
surgery, and said that she had funded the cosmetic procedures by selling faulty
goods. It stated that “Oxford Magistrates’ Court heard she helped to pay for
her revamp by selling counterfeit GHD-branded products on Amazon through her
company Perfect Strand.”
3. The complainant said that she had paid for and
undergone all of her cosmetic surgery prior to the incident with the faulty
electrical products. She said that she had never made any money from the sale
of faulty goods, as the products had been discovered by Trading Standards on an
online marketplace and withdrawn from sale before any purchases had been
completed. She also said that the she had not been personally convicted of any
charges; she had pleaded guilty on behalf of her company.
4. The newspaper had relied on agency copy for the story.
It said that the complainant was the sole director of her hair extension
company, which made her morally responsible for the charges for which the
company had been convicted. It said that it was satisfied that the
complainant’s hair extension business, through which she had attempted to sell
the faulty products, had helped to pay for her cosmetic surgery. The fact that
money from the sale of the specific hair straighteners which had been seized by
Trading Standards had not contributed to her surgery costs did not mean that a
significant inaccuracy had been published. Selling hair straighteners was part
of the complainant’s business, and that business was being used to fund the
complainant’s cosmetic surgery. Nonetheless, the newspaper amended the article
to remove references to the complainant having funded her cosmetic surgery
through the sale of faulty goods, and to having been convicted of fraud. It
also offered to append the following footnote:
“The article has been updated to make clear that Ms Hawk
was neither personally charged nor convicted of fraud. It has also been amended
to make clear that her cosmetic surgery was funded separately from the fake GHD
straighteners which she had offered for sale.”
5. The complainant said that she wanted the article to be
removed from the newspaper’s website.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy or misleading distortion
once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and –
where appropriate – an apology published.
Findings of the Committee
7. The article under complaint was presented as a court
report of the complainant’s convictions, but it had not been stated in court
that the complainant had funded her cosmetic procedures “by selling fake GHD
hair straighteners”. The absence of an adequate explanation for this inaccuracy
in material presented as a court report demonstrated a failure to take care
over the accuracy of the material on the part of the agency which provided the
copy; this was a failure for which the newspaper was responsible under the
terms of the Code.
8. In the Committee’s view, the inaccuracy identified by
the complainant was significant; the article had said that she had spent a
substantial sum of fraudulently-obtained money on cosmetic surgery, when in
fact the connection drawn between the crimes and the spending on cosmetic
surgery had been erroneous. The article required correction under the terms of
Clause 1 (ii).
9. The article had made clear that “Hawk…admitted four
trademark offence charges on behalf of her company and a single offence of
selling a product which breached safety regulations”. The complainant is the
sole director of her company. In this context, the interchangeable references
to the complainant and her company elsewhere in the article were not
significantly misleading; a correction was not required under the terms of
Clause 1 (ii).
Conclusions
10. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
11. Having upheld the complaint under Clause 1 (i), the
Committee considered what remedial action should be required. The Committee has
the power to require the publication of a correction and/or adjudication, the
nature, extent and placement of which is to be determined by IPSO. It may also
inform the publication that further remedial action is required to ensure that
the requirements of the Editors’ Code are met.
12. The Committee considered that, given the nature of
the breach of the Code and of the publication, the appropriate remedy was the
publication of a correction, the nature, extent and prominence of which would
be determined by IPSO.
13. In this case, in light of the fact that the article
had already been suitably amended, the Committee decided that the appropriate
remedy would be the publication of a correction, in the form of a footnote to
the article. The Committee acknowledged that the footnote offered by the
newspaper had been based on a wording suggested by IPSO’s Executive. However, since
that time the Committee has made clear, via its published rulings, that in
order to be sufficient a correction must identify the original inaccuracy, and
clarify the correct position. While the footnote offered by the newspaper had
clarified the correct position, it had not clearly stated the original
inaccuracy. It was not sufficient to remedy the established breach of the Code.
The wording of the new correction should be agreed with IPSO in advance, and
must make clear that the newspaper had not been able to substantiate its claims
that the complainant had paid for her cosmetic surgery by selling faulty
electrical hair appliances. In addition, the correction should acknowledge that
it had been published following a ruling by the Independent Press Standards
Organisation.
Date complaint received: 15/10/2014
Date decision issued: 24/03/2015