Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 01863-22 Francesco v walesonline.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Mark
Francesco complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
walesonline.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Builder fabricated texts in
attempt to get Welsh Government civil servant sacked”, published on 3rd
December 2021.
2. The article reported that the complainant
sent “fraudulent texts” to a civil servant’s employer “claiming she had
disclosed classified information”. It stated that “[t]he complaint was taken
seriously by the woman's employer who launched an investigation and
disciplinary proceedings against her”, and, although she was “exonerated”, “it
took 11 months before [the complainant] admitted the fraud”. The article said
that the woman had “complained about the quality and cost of [building] work he
had carried out on her home” and that during civil proceedings, he made the
“false claims against the woman” that she had “had aired her personal opinions
on the Covid-19 response, elected leaders and First Minister Mark Drakeford”.
The article reported that the prosecution had said, “It is now accepted those
messages were completely false and fabricated and were deliberately and
fraudulently inserted in a message chain to expose the victim to risk of loss
which would have been the loss of her employment as a civil servant at the
Welsh Government”. The article stated the complainant “pleaded guilty to
committing fraud by false representation” and that he “was sentenced to six
months imprisonment suspended for 12 months. He was also ordered to carry out
80 hours unpaid work, a rehabilitation activity requirement of 30 days and was
made subject to a restraining order”
3. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because
he had not been sentenced to 30 days of rehabilitation activity but to 10 days.
He also said the article was inaccurate because it was not his intention to get
the woman “sacked” when he sent the texts, and this had never been proven in
court. He said his barrister had argued in court that, although the civil
servant was originally suspended, she was reinstated before it was established
the messages were fabricated. This meant there was no threat to her of losing
her job.
4. The
complainant said the article also breached Clause 2 because it published his
street level address. He said this was unnecessary information that put him and
his family at risk.
5. The
publication said it accepted that it was inaccurate for the article to report
that the complainant had been sentenced to 30 days of rehabilitation
activities. The parties had been in correspondence before the complaint to IPSO
and during this correspondence, the publication had published a footnote
correction:
Correction:
A previous version of this article stated that Mark Francesco had been
sentenced to a rehabilitation activity requirement of 30 days. In fact, it was
10 days. We are happy to clarify this.
6. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1 regarding whether the
complainant had intended to get the civil servant “sacked”. It provided the
court reporter’s notes which recorded that, during court proceedings, the
prosecution said the complainant “deliberately and fraudulently inserted in a
message chain to expose the victim to risk of loss which would have been the
loss of her employment as a civil servant at the Welsh Government”.
Notwithstanding this, at the start of IPSO’s investigation, the publication
amended the headline to say, “Builder fabricated texts which exposed Welsh
Government civil servant to risk of getting sacked” and added a correction to
the top of the articl
Correction:
A previous headline of this article stated as fact that Mark Francesco
fraudulently made the texts in an attempt to get the civil servant sacked. We
would like to clarify that although Mr Francesco pleaded guilty to fraud, and
that the prosecution stated that he 'deliberately and fraudulently inserted in
a message chain to expose the victim to risk of loss', his defence barrister
expressed that the defendant did not want his victim to lose her job. We are
happy to clarify this.
7. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It said it was entitled to
publish the complainant’s partial address because it was heard in court and
because it serves to help distinguish people with the same name.
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.
Clause 2
(Privacy)*
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home,
physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii)
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private
life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of
privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of
information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in
the public domain or will become so.
iii) It
is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or
private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Findings
of the Committee
8. The
Committee first considered the reporting of how much rehabilitative activity
the complainant had been sentenced. The newspaper accepted that it had
inaccurately reported that the complainant received 30 days of rehabilitation
activity, when he had actually received 10 days. The publication, therefore,
had not taken sufficient care over the accurate reporting of the complainant’s
sentence and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).
9. The
error related to what had been heard in court and claimed the sentence the
complainant had received was three times longer than was the case; it was
therefore significant and required correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
The publication had amended the article and added a footnote correction to the
article when it was made aware of the error by the complainant and before the
complaint came to IPSO. This was sufficiently prompt. A footnote correction
represented due prominence where the inaccuracy appeared towards the end of the
article and had been corrected. There was no breach of Clause 1(ii) on this
point.
10. The
Committee then turned to the complaint regarding whether the complainant had
“fabricated texts in [an] attempt to get Welsh Government civil servant
sacked”. The court reporter’s notes showed that the prosecution had stated the
complainant had “deliberately and fraudulently inserted in a message chain to
expose the victim to risk of loss which would have been the loss of her
employment as a civil servant at the Welsh Government”. The Committee noted
that the defence had stated the complainant “did not want his victim to lose
her job”. However, where the texts lead to the instigation of disciplinary
proceedings against the woman, the complainant had pleaded guilty to the
sending of the messages, and where the prosecution had said it was “accepted
those messages […] were deliberately and fraudulently inserted in a message
chain to expose the victim to risk of loss which would have been the loss of
her employment”, the Committee concluded that it was not inaccurate or
misleading for the headline to claim the complainant had send the messages “in
attempt to get [the woman] sacked”. This represented the publication’s
characterisation and the article provided sufficient basis for this
characterisation. There was no breach of Clause 1(i).
11.
Finally, the Committee considered the complaint under Clause 2. In accordance
with the principle of open justice, newspapers are generally entitled to report
information that has been disclosed in open court and is not subject to a
reporting restriction. The address of a defendant would typically be given in
court, and the publication of a street address helps to accurately identify
defendants. There was, therefore, no reasonable expectation of privacy over the
complainant’s street level address and no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusion(s)
12. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
Date
complaint received: 28/02/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/08/2022
Back to ruling listing