Decision of the Complaints Committee – 01813-20 Lanigan v
Sunday Life
Summary of Complaint
1. John and Gail Lanigan complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Sunday Life breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors' Code of Practice in an article headlined "Rangers jersey fakers
busted” published on 8 March 2020.
2. The article reported that a couple “were facing
sentencing after they were convicted of selling dodgy football shirts,
allegedly for the west Belfast UDA” (Ulster Defence Association). The article
reported the first complainant was convicted on three counts of selling goods
with a registered trademark, two of possessing articles which infringed
copyright and one of distributing articles which infringed copyright. It
reported that the second complainant was convicted of three counts of selling
goods with a registered trademark and three of possessing articles which
infringed copyright. The article went on to report that “speaking at the time
of their arrest, a police spokesperson said the charges relate ‘to a
Paramilitary Crime Taskforce investigation into the criminal activities of the
West Belfast UDA, including the sale of counterfeit goods’”. The article went
on to discuss UDA activity in West Belfast. The article featured a banner at
the top of the page, which stated “EXCLUSIVE PAIR ‘SOLD DODGY GOODS FOR UDA”.
3. The complainants said that the article inaccurately
affiliated them with the West Belfast UDA and they denied any involvement with
any illegal organisation. The complainants said that by reporting that they had
“sold dodgy goods for the UDA”, the article had given the inaccurate impression
that their supposed links to the organisation, and by association the drug
trade, were heard in court, when this information was not mentioned in court
and there was no suggestion of paramilitary activity in the case presented by
the Public Prosecution Service. The complainants said that the inaccurate
impression that they were involved with the UDA was confounded by the articles
discussion on recent incidents allegedly involving the UDA, which had no
relation to them being on trial for counterfeit goods. The complainants said
they were not afforded an opportunity to comment on the article’s allegations
prior to publication.
4. The publication denied any breach of the Code and did not
accept that it was inaccurate in any way to link the charges the complainants
faced to the criminal activities of the West Belfast UDA. The publication noted
that at the time of the complainants’ arrest the Police Service of Northern
Ireland issued a press release in the following terms:
For Release: Detectives from PSNI’s Paramilitary Crime Task
Force have charged a 55 year old man and a 49 year old woman with concealing
criminal property, entering into arrangement and possession of criminal
property
They are due to appear at Antrim Magistrates Court on 3
December 2019.
As is normal procedure all charges will be reviewed by the
PPS.
Guidance: These charges relate to a man and woman who were
arrested in the Antrim area on 19 June 2019 in relation to a PCTF investigation
into the criminal activities of the West Belfast UDA including the sale of
counterfeit goods.
5. Given the content of the press release, which the
publication noted was widely reported at the time, the publication said that it
was entirely appropriate to reference the link between the sale of the goods
and the UDA, and discuss wider UDA activity. Nevertheless, the publication said
that the article made clear that this was an allegation as opposed to any
finding of the court. As the article was based on the press release and the
outcome of court proceedings, the publication did not accept that not contacting
the complainants prior to publication represented a failure to take care not to
publish inaccurate information.
6. The complainants said that it was misleading for the
publication to rely on an historic press release from November 2019, when the
article under complaint was published in March 2020, when there had been
matters before the court in the interim which did not refer to paramilitary
activity.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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
8. The article reported that the complainants had
“allegedly” sold counterfeit goods for the UDA and the banner at the top of the
article featured the allegation in inverted commas; the article did not report
categorically that the complainants sold goods for the UDA, that they were
members of the UDA, or that this was a finding of the court. The article
included an excerpt from the PSNI press release confirming the details of the
arrest and summarised the guidance accompanying the press release, in which the
PSNI stated that the charges were “in relation to a PCTF investigation into the
criminal activities of the West Belfast UDA including the sale of counterfeit
goods”. The press release made clear that the complainants were arrested as
part of an operation into the activities of the West Belfast UDA, which the
publication was entitled to report; the complainants did not dispute the facts
of this press release. The article made clear that the court convicted the
complainants of selling goods with a registered trademark, and possessing and
distributing articles which infringed copyright, and not of any offence in
relation to paramilitary activity or membership of an illegal organisation. The
publication had taken care to distinguish between comment, conjecture, and
fact. The facts being the specific offences the complainants were convicted of,
and the conjecture, which comprised of the claim based on the police press
release that the goods were sold for the UDA. Where the publication had made
clear that these were allegations supported by the police press release, and
not findings by the court, and where the article made the offences the
complainants were convicted of clear, there was no failure to take over the
accuracy of the claim that the complainants had sold goods for the UDA. There
was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
9. The selection of material for publication is a matter of
editorial discretion provided the Code is not otherwise breached. In
circumstances where there was no failure to take care over the claim concerning
the complainants’ alleged involvement with the UDA, including details of wider
UDA activity did not render the article significantly misleading. There was no
breach of Clause 1.
10. The Code does not stipulate that a right of reply is required.
Where the allegations were based on a police press release and the publicly
available findings of the court, and where the publication had taken care over
the presentation of the claims within the article, not contacting the
complainants for comment did not represent a failure to take care not to
publish inaccurate information. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusions
11. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
12. N/A
Date received: 16/03/2020
Date concluded by IPSO: 07/08/2020
Back to ruling listing