Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 01743-21 Power v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Rosemary Power complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Illegal migrants are getting Covid jabs in free plush
quarantine hotels at Heathrow weeks ahead of older and more vulnerable British
people...while arrivals from 'red-list' countries must pay £1,750 for WORSE
accommodation”, published on 12 February 2021.
2. The
article reported that some migrants claiming asylum in the UK during the
coronavirus pandemic were receiving a coronavirus vaccine ahead of vulnerable
or older British people who were higher up the priority list. It also stated
that these migrants were staying in higher quality hotels than travellers
returning from red list countries, who were obliged to pay for their quarantine
accommodation, reporting that the migrants’ situation was a “far cry from the
less-than-warm welcome awaiting travellers from 33 'red list' countries flying
into Heathrow, and four other English airports”. The article noted that a
four-star hotel was “among hotels across Britain housing migrants who have
slipped into country illegally”. The claim that the migrants had “slipped into
the country illegally” was repeated in the text of article, and the experiences
of several migrants was reported in the article in quotes; one stated that “I
was living rough in Calais until before Christmas when I came to the UK by
boat”; another explained “I had been in Europe for seven years trying to find a
way to get to the UK”. The article also reported that the migrants were
“await[ing] their asylum claims to be decided” and described the migrants as
“asylum seekers”. The article reported that the migrants, in discussing the
hotel accommodation in which they lived, had described the “English breakfast
[as] ‘very good’”. A bullet point at the start of the article claimed that one
“20-year-old boasted how he and 400 other migrants have had the coronavirus
jab”. The article included the man’s full quote, stating that he “proclaim[ed]
proudly: 'I was given the vaccination yesterday at the hotel to stop me
catching Covid. There are 400 migrants living here and we nearly all had it. No
one I know refused.'” And that he “tapp[ed] his arm to show the site of the injection”.
3. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She
said that the headline wrongly described asylum seekers as “illegal migrants”.
She said that it was not illegal for asylum seekers to arrive in a country
undocumented and by informal routes, and that this was frequently the only
option available to them. She said that 98% of people who arrived in this
manner claimed asylum, and therefore they should be referred to as “asylum
seekers”.
4. The
complainant also said it was inaccurate to describe the subjects of the article
as receiving an “English breakfast” as this gave the misleading impression they
were given a substantial breakfast and not simply the bread, butter and jam
they did receive. She also said it was inaccurate to state that one of the
asylum seekers had “boasted” that he had received the vaccine; she said that
their expression of gratitude should not have been twisted. Finally, the
complainant said that the article had breached Clause 1 as it was irrelevant to
compare the treatment of asylum seekers with those who had chosen to travel
from red list countries and that the tone of the article was abusive.
5. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that headlines should
be read in conjunction with the content of the article, and noted that the
article referred to the hotel occupants as “asylum seekers” five times. It said
it was, therefore, abundantly clear that the residents had claimed asylum, and
were awaiting judgment with respect to their applications. It said it was also
clear from the article that the asylum seekers interviewed had entered the
country illegally, making them “illegal migrants”, and noted that the Prime
Minister had stated that those who crossed the channel via boat without the
correct documents were “breaking the law”. The publication said that it was not
an inaccurate characterisation to refer to asylum seekers who had entered the
country as irregular migrants as “illegal migrants” as this was a plain term
description of how they entered the country. Whilst it did not accept that this
amounted to a breach of the Code, it amended the headline refer to “asylum
seekers” rather than “illegal migrants”. In addition, a footnote was added to
the article which read “Since publication the headline of this article has been
amended to refer to 'asylum seekers' and not 'illegal migrants'.”
6. The
publication said it was not significantly inaccurate to refer to a breakfast of
bread, butter and jam as an “English breakfast” and said that it had used this
term to contrast with the breakfasts served in the migrant’s home countries.
With regard to the claim that one of the migrants had “boasted” that he had
received a vaccine, the publication noted that the article in full made clear
he had “proclaimed proudly” he had the jab, and had tapped the vaccine site on
his arm.
7. The
Committee noted the terms of Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention:
REFUGEES
UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal
entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where
their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are
present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.
and
section 31 of The Immigration and Asylum Act (1999) which states that:
Defences
based on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention.
(1)
It is a defence for a refugee charged with an offence to which this section
applies to show that, having come to the United Kingdom directly from a country
where his life or freedom was threatened (within the meaning of the Refugee
Convention), he […].—
(b) showed
good cause for his illegal entry or presence;
(2)
If, in coming from the country where his life or freedom was threatened, the
refugee stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom, subsection (1)
applies only if he shows that he could not reasonably have expected to be given
protection under the Refugee Convention in that other country.
8. The
publication said that the legal instruments demonstrated its position that it
was not mutually exclusive to describe foreign citizens who enter the country
without leave and who then immediately present themselves to the authority in
order to claim asylum as being both asylum seekers and illegal migrants. It
noted that both of the legal instruments made reference to “illegal entry or
presence”, and that the people who were interviewed by the reporter indicated
that they had entered the country illegally by small boat over the channel or
by lorry from Europe. The publication also said that, whilst it did not wish to
make any particular assertions regarding the asylum seeker status of the
migrants interviewed, 31(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act made reference to
the protection that could be given by the previous country the migrants stopped
in, and that the most recent country passed through by the migrants interviewed
would have been France.
9. The
publication also noted that the UK government itself referred to the method of
entry described by the migrants in the article under complaint as “illegal
migration”, such as in the recent consultation into the reform of the Human
Rights Act 1998 which stated that “298) Equally, there are a number of other
challenges to the government’s ability to tackle illegal migration,
particularly via small boats in the English Channel”.
10. The
complainant disputed this interpretation and said that the publication’s
response contradicted the relevant legal instruments, and she did not consider
it relevant to cite quotes from Members of Parliament or the Home Office.
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
11. The
Committee first made clear that people have a right to seek asylum in the UK,
and that it is not illegal to do so.
12. The
body of the article had referred to the migrants as “await[ing] their asylum
claims to be decided”, and described them as “asylum seekers”. The question for
the Committee was whether it was inaccurate to describe the migrants, elsewhere
in the article, as “illegal migrants”, in these circumstances. The Committee
noted that the terms “illegal migrants” and “asylum seekers” were distinct
terms, and were not interchangeable.
13. The
article had described the routes taken by the migrants into the UK, such as in
lorries or via boat, and had quoted two migrants describing how they had
entered the UK through irregular routes. The publication had provided quotes
from the government which described migrants who entered the UK via irregular
methods in which it had described them as “breaking the law” and had described
these routes as “illegal migration”. The Committee also noted that the United
Nations Refugee Convention, which UK immigration law is based on, and the
Immigration and Asylum Act (1999), use the term “illegal entry” when describing
irregular methods of entry of migrants seeking asylum, albeit that these
provisions made clear that penalties would not apply in these cases.
14.
Where entry into a country via irregular means had been described as “illegal”
by the UK Government and in British and international migration law
(notwithstanding a subsequent claim of asylum), the Committee did not find that
characterising irregular entry into a country as “illegal” represented a
failure to take care over the accuracy of the article or a significant
inaccuracy. In addition, where the article made clear that the migrants were in
the process of seeking asylum, and had included various accounts and examples
of the migrants’ personal irregular entry as the basis for its description of
them as “illegal migrants” or entering the UK “illegally”. The Committee
considered that the article had drawn a distinction between such irregular routes,
and legal routes by “travellers from 33 'red list' countries flying into
Heathrow, and four other English airports”. In these circumstances, the
Committee found that the article was not stating that asylum seekers themselves
were illegal, but that the particular asylum seekers interviewed and staying
within the accommodation in question had entered irregularly. Where this
distinction was drawn, it was not misleading to describe them as “illegal
migrants”, while making clear their status as asylum seekers. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on this point, however the Committee welcomed the
publication of the clarification offered by the publication.
15. With
regards to the other points under complaint, the Committee did not consider it
significantly misleading to describe bread, butter and jam as an “English
breakfast” where it described a breakfast made up of foods commonly consumed at
breakfast in England. In addition, the decision to compare the situation of the
asylum seekers and people who had travelled to the UK formally from red list
countries was a matter of selection and therefore fell within the publication’s
editorial discretion. The complainant had also found it inaccurate to describe
one of the asylum seekers as “boasting”. The article had included a quote from
the asylum seeker, and where his words were included within the article, it was
not inaccurate to characterise these words as “boasting”. Similarly, the tone
of the article, whilst offensive to the complainant, was not a point that could
be found to be inaccurate and therefore did not engage Clause 1. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on these points.
Conclusion(s)
16. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
17. N/A
Date
complaint received: 17/02/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/03/2022
Back to ruling listing