Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 01443-22 Risk Management Authority v Scottish
Daily Mail
Summary
of Complaint
1. The
Risk Management Authority (RMA) complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Scottish Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in the following three articles:
· An
article headlined “£125,000 quango boss who’s supposed to keep public safe”,
published on 19 November 2021.
· An
article headlined “In week that monster got 19 years, SNP quango maintains:
‘It’s disrespectful to call sex offenders high risk... it ignores their
strengths’, published on 20 November 2021.
· An
article headlined “Stopping sex fiends: It’s like guessing weather, says SNP
quango”, published on 31 January 2022.
2. The
first article reported on the staffing costs for the RMA which it described as
an “SNP quango” set up to manage high-risk offenders, adding that the
organisation produced standards and guidelines for risk assessment and risk
management of all violent and sexual offenders in Scotland.
3. The
second article reported that in new guidelines, produced by the “SNP quango”, the
RMA, had recommended that “sex offenders should not be branded ‘high-risk’
because it is disrespectful and overlooks their ‘strengths’”. It reported that
the RMA document, titled ‘Framework for Risk Assessment, Management and
Evaluation’, [hereafter FRAME] stated: “If we describe people as ‘high risk’ we
may diminish our appreciation of the individuals, their lives, challenges,
strengths and personal characteristics to a collection of risk factors.
Conversely, a person described as ‘low risk’ may seem to merit little
recognition. Neither would be consistent with the commonly held value of
‘respect’ or ‘unconditional positive regard’.” The article then stated that,
according to the RMA, “good practice would suggest that we should use [terms
such as very high, high, medium and low] sparingly, if at all, when
communicating about concepts such as “risk of harm”, for which a range of
definitions exist”. The article included a statement from Scottish Conversative
Justice Spokesperson, who described the guidance as “yet another attempt by an
SNP Government quango to wrap criminals up in cotton wool” and the risk posed
by offenders should be made as clear to the public as possible – not obscured
by “warn and fuzzy language”. The article also included a response from the RMA
which said that using labels such as “high risk” should be used “cautiously”,
with the risk an individual poses “communicated accurately” when describing the
“pattern, nature, seriousness and likelihood of offending” to ensure that the
term is “not open to interpretation”.
4. The
opening sentence of the third article reported that an “SNP quango” had
admitted its work trying to “stop high-risk sex criminals reoffending [was] as
accurate as a weather forecast”. It then stated that the RMA had “compared its
activities – attempting to limit the chances of paedophiles and rapists
striking again – with predicting changes in the weather”. The article said that
according to advice issued by RMA “weather forecasting has been explored as an
analogy that is helpful in understanding risk communication”, as it provides a
“synthesis of scientific detail in a manner that can be understood by the
intended audience” and “the detail and scope of the forecast will vary
depending on the needs of the audience and the risks involved”, adding that
more detailed forecasts might be needed for those “operating in potentially
hazardous environments such as marine or mountain”. It reported that the
document stated: “There are clear parallels when we consider the challenge of
developing and communicating about proportionate risk practice [in relation to
sex offenders], adding that the “analogy has been critically examined by some
but nonetheless it raises valuable questions about our communication of risk”.
The article included the following statement from a spokesperson for the RMA:
“The forecast analogy is used to reinforce that communication risk needs to be
clear, so that risk is understood and decisions and action can be taken.” It
also included a statement from the Scottish Government and the Scottish
Conversative Justice Spokesperson, with the latter saying that the “strange
analogy from the [RMA] will hardly inspire confidence in their work among the
public”. It also reported that the RMA had “previously recommended against
branding sex offenders ‘high risk’ because it [was] ‘disrespectful’”.
5. The
complainant said each of the three articles were inaccurate, in breach of
Clause 1 (Accuracy), to describe it as an “SNP quango”; it was an independent
authority, not affiliated to any political party. It was a non-departmental
public body (NDPB) which had a role in the processes of national government but
was not a government department or part of one.
6. The
complainant further said that the headline of the second article inaccurately
and misleadingly presented the latter part as a direct quote from the
organisation; it denied saying that it was “disrespectful” to call sex
offender’s high risk. This was not an
accurate reflection of the organisation’s position or the FRAME policy referenced
within by the article.
7. With
regard to the third article, the complainant said the headline was inaccurate;
the RMA had not said that “stopping sex fiends” was “like guessing [the]
weather”. While the complainant accepted that forecasting had been used as an
analogy with the FRAME guidance, the policy document did not state that the
risk assessment of sex offenders was as “accurate as a weather forecast” or
akin to “guessing weather”; instead, the weather analogy was used to stress the
fundamental importance of clear and proportionate communication of risk.
Further, the complainant said it had clarified to the publication exactly what
was meant by the forecasting analogy prior to the article’s publication: “FRAME
indicates that risk should be communicated in terms of the pattern, nature,
seriousness and likelihood of offending to inform decisions. The forecast
analogy is used to reinforce that communication risk needs to be clear, so that
risk is understood and decisions and action can be taken”.
8. The
newspaper did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It did not accept that
the articles were inaccurate or misleading to describe the RMA as a “SNP
quango”. It noted that the term “quango” was widely understood to be an
informal shorthand for a public body, rather than making a specific claim about
its independence or legal status. In order to demonstrate this usage, the
newspaper provided a number of recent articles. Further, it said that the RMA
was “set up” by the Scottish Government (which was currently controlled by the
SNP).
9. The
newspaper did not accept that the headline of the second article was inaccurate
or misleading. It said that the quotation was the publication’s own summary and
characterisation of the complainant’s position; it paraphrased the main idea of
the text below and that this was a standard journalistic practice – quotations
marks were not only used to present verbatim quotes. The article quoted
directly from the FRAME policy document which stated that describing an
offender as “high risk” would not “…be consistent with the commonly held value
of ‘respect’ or ‘unconditional positive regard’”; it was not misleading to
summarise this as “disrespect”. Further, it noted that the complainant had been
provided with an opportunity to comment, prior to the article’s publication,
and the full comments provided by the organisation included within the text of
the article.
10. In
addition, the newspaper did not accept that the third article was inaccurate or
misleading. It argued that the central point of the headline – that stopping
sex offenders (re)offending involved an element of the unknowable – was made
clear by the text of the article, and was an accurate characterisation of the
advice issued by the complainant. The FRAME document had used weather
forecasting as an analogy for conveying the risk of a sex offender; the
newspaper did not accept there was a significant difference between
“forecasting” and “guessing” the weather. Further, the document made clear that
there were “clear parallels” between assessing the risk of sex offenders and
predicting the weather, and had described the analogy as “helpful”. It noted
the article quoted extensively from the advice issued by the RMA, and had
included the statement issued by the complainant. The newspaper added that in
its enquiry to the complainant, prior to the article’s publication, it had set
out its characterisation of the advice issued, and this had not been disputed
by the organisation’s press office. The newspaper said it was therefore
reasonable to assume that the RMA accepted this characterisation.
11.
Notwithstanding this, at the start of IPSO’s investigation and in order to
resolve the complaint, the newspaper offered to publish the following wording
in its established Corrections and Clarification column:
“An
article on January 31 about the Risk Management Authority (RMA) said that it
had admitted that its work trying to stop high-risk sex offenders was “as
accurate as a weather forecast”. The RMA has since clarified that its reference
to weather forecasting was in the context of communicating the risk of
reoffending, rather than assessing its work”.
12. The
complainant said that the publication’s offer was inadequate, as it failed to
acknowledge and address the other points of complaint. As such, the matter was
passed to the Complaints Committee for adjudication.
Relevant
Code 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.
Findings
of the Committee
13. The
Committee first considered the third article. While the Editors’ Code grants
editors considerable latitude in the characterisation and presentation of
source material, Clause 1 (Accuracy) is explicit in its requirement that care
is taken not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information and
for headline statements to be supported by the text of the article.
14. The
Committee reviewed the FRAME report and noted that while it included a
description of the value of a weather forecasting analogy, this was clearly
made in the context of how risk was communicated; the detail and scope of
individual pieces of communication about the likelihood of a particular event
occurring should be adapted to the needs and levels of technical understanding
of the target audience. The report did not, in any way, compare the processes
or the consequent level of accuracy between weather forecasting and preventing
reoffending. Further, while the publication had taken care to approach the RMA
for comment prior to the article’s publication, the response made clear that
the forecast analogy was used in the context of how risk was communicated
rather than the accuracy of its assessments; the RMA had clarified the
intention and meaning of the analogy and made clear that it did not accept the
characterisation put forward by the publication. In this context, the headline
claim that the complainant had compared “stopping sex fiends” to “guessing
[the] weather” misrepresented the advice issued and went beyond a legitimate
editorial interpretation or characterisation of the FRAME report. This was
further compounded by the text of the article. The guidance did not say, as the
opening sentence of the article suggested, that the RMA had “admitted” that
“stopping sex fiends” was “as accurate as a weather forecast” or “predicting
changes in weather”, as suggested further in the article. Consequently, the
Committee considered that the headline and text of the article mispresented the
advice issued and the position of the complainant which had formed the basis
for the article. On this basis, the newspaper had taken insufficient care not
to publish inaccurate or misleading information in breach of Clause 1 (i).
15. This
was considered significant, where it formed the central basis for the article
and created the misimpression that the
complainant had conceded that its work preventing the reoffending of sex
offenders was like “guessing [the] weather”, which it had not. The article
therefore required correction under Clause 1(ii).
16. The
newspaper had offered to publish a clarification at the start of IPSO’s
investigation. This had been offered promptly and its proposed placement – in
the newspaper’s established Corrections and Corrections column – was
appropriately prominent. However, in the view of the Committee, the wording
offered was insufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The newspaper’s
characterisation of the guidance was inaccurate and misleading, and the
newspaper ought to have addressed this directly in a correction. Instead, the
offered clarification referred to the complainant as having “since clarified”
that its advice was in the context of communicating the risk of reoffending,
rather than the assessments of its work. As such, there was a further breach of
Clause 1 (ii).
17. The
Committee did not consider that the other points raised by the complainant
raised a breach of Clause 1. It did not consider that describing the
complainant as a “SNP quango” was inaccurate or misleading. It noted that the
term “quango” referred to quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations which
received support from the government; the RMA had been established by the
Scottish government, which was currently led by the SNP, and had a Convener
responsible to Scottish Ministers and Board members appointed by Scottish
Ministers. Taken in this context, the newspaper’s description of the
complainant in such terms did not demonstrate a failure to take care over the
accuracy of the articles under complaint, or constitute a significantly
inaccurate or misleading statement requiring correction under the terms of
Clause 1 (ii). There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
18. With
regards to the second article, the Committee acknowledged that quotations marks
may be used in headlines for a variety of reasons, including to summarise a
subject’s position. In this case, the headline was clearly the newspaper’s
characterisation of the advice issued by the complainant. This stated that
describing an offender as ‘high risk’ may diminish “appreciation of the
individuals” and that such a description would not “be consistent with the
commonly held value of ‘respect’”. In this context, the Committee was satisfied
that the comments made by the complainant, and relied upon by the newspaper,
provided a sufficient basis for the manner in which it had characterised the
complainant’s view; it was not a failure to care over the accuracy of the
article, to report that the complainant had said it was “disrespectful” to call
sex offender’s ‘high risk’. Further, the text of the article included the full
extracts of the complainant’s comments so that readers would be able to see the
precise words summarised by the newspaper in the headline. The Committee did
not consider that the newspaper’s characterisation of the advice issued by the
complainant on this point was significantly inaccurate or misleading. There was
no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusion(s)
19. The
complaint was upheld in part.
Remedial
Action Required
20.
Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, the Committee considered what remedial
action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a
breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction
and/or an adjudication, the terms and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
21. The
Committee considered that the article had significantly misrepresented the
advice issued by the complainant and the complainant’s position. While the
clarification offered by the newspaper had been insufficient, it had shown a
willingness to resolve the complaint and correct the matter. Therefore, on
balance, the Committee considered that a correction, putting the correct
position on record was the appropriate remedy.
22. The
Committee then considered the placement of this correction. This correction
should appear in the newspaper’s established Corrections and Clarification
column. The wording of this correction should be agreed with IPSO in advance
and should make clear that it had been published following an upheld ruling by
the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Date
complaint received: 03/02/22
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 31/08/22
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The publication complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Reviewer found that the IPSO process was flawed as one piece of relevant correspondence was not included within the material reviewed by the Committee when it decided on the complaint, due to an oversight in the collation of the file. The complaint was therefore returned to the Committee for consideration with this correspondence and an amended decision then issued.
Back to ruling listing