Decision of the Complaints Committee 01780-14 Turner v The Sun on Sunday
1. Richard Turner complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Sun on Sunday had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Milly killer
tormented Sarah’s dad”, published on 2 November 2014.
2. The complainant is the brother of convicted multiple
murderer Levi Bellfield. The article reported that, before his crimes had been
exposed, Mr Bellfield had been a neighbour of Michael Payne, the father of murdered
schoolgirl Sarah Payne, and had deliberately befriended him. It said that Mr
Bellfield had “targeted” Mr Payne during weekly drinking sessions in their
local pub, and that Mr Payne had been “devastated” and “tormented” when Mr
Bellfield was arrested, and he realised by whom he had been befriended. It was
accompanied by a short article written by former Detective Chief Inspector
Colin Sutton, the police officer who led the investigation which ultimately led
to Mr Bellfield’s convictions. He stated that police had found newspaper
cuttings about Sarah Payne’s murder in Mr Bellfield’s house.
3. The complainant said that his brother had never met,
socialised with or been a neighbour of Mr Payne; it followed that he had not
“targeted” or “stalked” him, as the article claimed. While both men had at one
time lived in Collingwood Place in Walton, his brother had left in March 2002,
and Mr Payne had not moved in until 2004. The complainant provided an article
published in The Sun, the newspaper's sister publication, in 2008, which had
stated that Mr Bellfield had left his flat in Collingwood Place in 2002 “and
never returned”. Further, his brother had not drunk in the pub where the
meetings had allegedly taken place. The newspaper had reported that the pair had
met in 2003, but neither man was living in the street at that time.
4. The complainant said that no newspaper cuttings about
Sarah Payne had been found in his brother’s flat in Collingwood Place or in the
house to which he subsequently moved, where he had been living at the time of
his arrest. His brother had moved out of Collingwood Place years before it was
searched by police, and no personal effects had been found there. The
complainant provided a witness statement from a police officer which said that
there was only one newspaper cutting, which related to Amelie Delagrange, one
of his victims. This was contradicted, however, by another part of the witness
statement: a list of items which had been taken as evidence, which included two
newspaper cuttings. The complainant stated that the additional cutting related
to car clamping. His brother had not been questioned about cuttings relating to
Sarah Payne during the police interview with Det Ch Insp Sutton, and there had
been no mention of them during the trial.
5. The newspaper said that its report was based on the
recollections by Keith Payne, the late Mr Payne’s brother, and Cynthia Payne,
his mother; they had been quoted at length. While it accepted that the dates of
the two men’s residencies in Collingwood Place had been incorrect, it
maintained that the two men had been drinking companions, and noted that the
complainant had provided no evidence to prove otherwise. Both men had lived in
Collingwood Place; if it was not at the same time, this was not a significant
error. Mr Bellfield’s new residence was less than 15 miles away, and it was not
impossible that he had continued to drink at the pub. It noted that it had
published a report in 2009 claiming that Mr Bellfield had said that he would
attack Sarah Payne’s killer because he knew the family; it had received no complaint
about that article.
6. The newspaper provided an email from Det Ch Insp
Sutton, in which he had confirmed that at least one cutting or newspaper
relating to Sarah Payne was found at a property to which Mr Bellfield had had
access. He did not recall if the cutting had been retained by the police, as it
had little evidential value.
7. Nonetheless, in light of the complainant’s position
that Mr Bellfield and Mr Payne had not lived in the block of flats at the same
time, the newspaper offered to publish the following correction on page 2 of a
forthcoming edition:
In a story “Milly killer tormented Sarah’s dad”, 2
November 2014, we stated that the late Michael Payne, father of Sarah Payne,
drank in the same pub and “lived next door” to serial killer Levi Bellfield. Mr
Bellfield’s family, who dispute that Bellfield and Michael Payne knew each
other, would like us to clarify that the two men did not live in the same block
of flats at the same time.
8. The complainant said that the proposed correction only
addressed a small part of the complaint. He considered that its placement on
page 2 was insufficient to remedy a factually inaccurate front-page article.
Relevant Code Provisions
9. 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
10. The article’s central claim rested heavily on the
assertion that Michael Payne and Mr Bellfield had been neighbours in
Collingwood Place. The newspaper's sister publication had reported in 2008 that
Mr Bellfield had left Collingwood Place in 2002, and it was aware – and had
reported in the article under complaint – that Mr Payne had not arrived until
2004. In these circumstances, the newspaper’s prominent report that the two men
“lived next door” to one another and were “neighbours” – a central part of its
account of how the two men had met – constituted a failure to take care not to
publish inaccurate information.
11. The Committee did not agree with the complainant’s
position, however, that the inaccuracy on this point effectively disproved the
account of events set out by the Payne family, and in particular, Keith Payne.
Keith Payne had confirmed, on the record, that Mr Payne and Mr Bellfield had
drunk together in the pub, and that he was later “tormented” to learn of Mr
Bellfield’s crimes. The newspaper had been entitled to rely on his
recollections of his conversations with the late Mr Payne, and to include his
comments on those events. The complainant could not show that the two men had
not drunk together or known one another. The Committee did not establish a
significant inaccuracy in this regard, such that a correction was required
under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
12. While it appeared to be accepted that a newspaper cutting
relating to Sarah Payne had not been found at Mr Bellfield’s former flat in
Collingwood Place, Det Ch Insp Sutton was confident that cuttings had been
found at a premises where Mr Bellfield lived. The newspaper had been entitled
to rely on his evidence, and the witness statement provided by the complainant
had not contradicted Det Ch Insp Sutton’s account. There was no failure to take
care over the accuracy of this element of the article, and the Committee found
that any misattribution of the location at which these cuttings had been found
would in any case not be a significant inaccuracy in the context of the article
as a whole.
Conclusions
13. The complaint was upheld in part.
Remedial Action Required
14. 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.
15. The newspaper had offered to publish an appropriate
correction, which made clear that Michael Payne and Mr Bellfield had not lived
in the same block of flats at the same time, and further acknowledged the
complainant’s denial that they had known each other. In light of the
Committee’s decision, this correction should now be published both in print and
online.
Date complaint received: 13/11/2014
Date decision issued: 19/03/2015