· Decision of the Complaints Committee 01533-15 Miller v Daily Mail
Summary of
complaint
1. Andy Miller complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail had failed to comply with its
obligations under Clause 1 (iv) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
2. The complainant had successfully brought defamation
proceedings against the newspaper in relation to an article published in 2008.
The High Court established that the defamatory meaning of the article was that
there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the complainant was a willing
beneficiary of improper conduct and cronyism because of his friendship with
former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair in respect of the award
of a number of police contracts to the complainant’s company. The Court found
that this defamatory meaning had not been justified by the newspaper. The
complainant was successful in his claim and was awarded £65,000 in damages.
3. The newspaper published a report of the outcome of the
original trial in December 2012, on page 2 in print and online. The newspaper
then appealed the judgment; this appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal on
24 January 2014. It published an account of the judgment of the Court of Appeal
in January 2014, on page 41 in print and online.
4. The newspaper then sought permission to appeal to the
Supreme Court; permission to appeal was refused on 31 October 2014. The
complainant informed the newspaper of his position that, as of this date and in
accordance with the terms of Clause 1 (iv), it should now publish a report of
the outcome of the case.. The newspaper informed the complainant that it had
already discharged its obligations under the Code and did not intend to publish
a further report.
5. The complainant did not accept the newspaper’s
position and complained to IPSO. He considered that the action had only
concluded once the newspaper had run out of opportunities to appeal; the
decision of the Supreme Court was therefore the conclusion of the case and the
outcome should be reported in line with the letter and spirit of Clause 1 (iv)
of the Code.
6. Furthermore, the two reports previously published did
not fulfil the requirements of Clause 1 (iv). Amongst other concerns, the
complainant considered that the 2012 report was insufficiently prominent, in
light of the front-page placement of the original article. He also believed it
was unfair that the article’s headline did not use his name. Further, the
article inaccurately stated that the court “ruled that he had been defamed”;
the complainant said this was agreed ground between the parties, and that the court
instead found he had been libelled, having rejected the newspaper’s defence of
justification. He was further concerned that the text of the article
unnecessarily repeated the libel in reporting the judge’s finding on meaning,
which he believed suggested that the judge had supported or given weight to the
meaning attributed to the article. The complainant said that the article failed
to make it clear that the judge found the article to be untrue, due to the
inclusion in the report of the newspaper’s attempted defences of justification
and abuse of process; that it had failed to include comments from the judge
which showed the serious harm he had suffered; and that while the report noted
that he had been awarded £65,000 in damages, it had not made clear that this
included aggravated damages.
7. The complainant said that the online version of this
article was further deficient. Its headline simply stated he “claimed” the
article was libellous, rather than that his claim was successful. In addition,
captions to two images in the article were out of date – they suggested that
the claim was ongoing when, at the time of publication, the claim had been
decided in his favour by the High Court.
8. In relation to the January 2014 article, the
complainant argued that this, too, was insufficiently prominent; repeated the
defamatory allegations from the article; and failed to report his position that
those allegations were false, and that the Court had agreed with him. He
also sought to complain that the newspaper had failed to effectively update
articles it had published relating to him prior to the proceedings.
9. The newspaper said that the outcome of the action was
a victory for the complainant and the award of £65,000 damages. There had been
no hearing in the Supreme Court, which had simply refused permission to appeal
the case further. As such, those decisions which had previously been reported
stood, and there was nothing further to report.
10. The newspaper said that the complaints were, in any
event, out of time. The complainant had not previously raised complaints about
the original reports of the proceedings, and the complaint was made more than
four months after the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse permission to appeal.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the
outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an
agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
Findings of the Committee
12. The Committee rejected the newspaper’s contention
that this complaint had been made out of time. The complainant had contacted
IPSO within four months of being notified of the newspaper’s refusal to publish
a further report. The complainant was entitled to complain that this decision
represented a breach of the Code, and he was in time to do so.
13. The Committee recognised the complainant’s desire to
see the outcome of his case reported; the Court had ruled in his favour and
found the newspaper’s conduct to be particularly egregious. In defamation
proceedings, the Court must decide the proper remedy for the harm suffered by
successful claimants. Clause 1 (iv) places an additional obligation on
publications to inform their readers – fairly and accurately – of the outcome
of those proceedings.
14. While the proceedings, and the 2012 and 2014
articles, preceded IPSO’s launch and thus fell outside its remit, the
complainant argued that because those earlier reports had been inadequate, at
the time of IPSO’s launch the newspaper had yet to fulfil its obligation to
report the account of the proceedings. He argued that there was therefore an
ongoing breach of the Code, particularly given the newspaper’s failure to
publish a report following the refusal of leave to appeal.
15. The Committee therefore considered, first, whether
there was an outstanding obligation under Clause 1 (iv). It noted first that
the 2012 article had made plain that the complainant had succeeded in his libel
claim and that the newspaper had been ordered to pay £65,000 in damages to the
complainant. The article had also included a comment from the judge which
emphasised that the complainant had suffered considerably as a consequence of
the defamatory article’s publication.
16. The Committee did not accept the complainant’s
concerns about the accuracy of the 2012 report. It was evident from the context
that the defence of justification which had been relied upon by the newspaper
had failed. It was not inaccurate for the article to report that the
judge had ruled that the article was defamatory, given that a libellous
statement can properly be described as being defamatory. The omission of the
complainant’s name in the headline was not “unfair”, and the report had been
published with adequate prominence.
17. The newspaper had then published a report of the
Court of Appeal judgment, albeit brief and in a less prominent position than
the original.
18. In light of the 2012 and 2014 reports, the Committee
concluded there was no outstanding obligation under Clause 1 (iv), prior to the
refusal of leave to appeal.
19. The Committee did not accept that refusal of leave to
appeal represented the “outcome” of the proceedings; rather, the decision meant
that the newspaper was denied the opportunity to challenge the outcome of the
case which had been determined in the complainant's favour in 2014, which had
been fairly and accurately reported by the newspaper at that stage. No further
obligation under Clause 1 (iv) arose from this, particularly in light of the
fact that the newspaper had not reported on its application, which might
otherwise have suggested to readers that it regarded the proceedings as
on-going.
20. The complainant’s primary remaining concerns, about
the updates to the online articles, fell outside IPSO’s remit. These articles
had been published before IPSO’s launch and were not relevant to the question
of whether the newspaper had a residual obligation – in the period following
IPSO’s launch – to publish a fair and accurate report of the outcome of the
proceedings.
Conclusions
21. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 12/03/2015
Date decision issued: 01/05/2015