Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02093-22 Boreland v Sunday Life
Summary
of Complaint
1. Marcus
Boreland complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Sunday Life breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
two articles headlined “UDA boss Boreland accuses rivals of dirty tricks over
son’s ‘cocaine’ vid” and “Tensions rising on north coast as hotel raided and
guns stolen”, both of which were published on 6 February 2022.
2. The
articles both appeared on page 8 of the newspaper. The article headlined “UDA
boss Boreland accuses rivals of dirty tricks over son’s ‘cocaine’ vid” reported
on a video which allegedly showed the complainant’s son “pretending to cut
cocaine”. It referred to the complainant as a “UDA chief” and a “leading
loyalist”, going on to report that “[f]or his part the leading loyalist denies
any links to criminality, telling this newspaper: ‘I’m not involved in
anything. I never was and never will be.’”
3. Following
the complainant’s quoted denial, the article went on to state that: “[T]his is
at odds with Boreland’s conviction for phoning a Catholic work colleague to
tell him he ‘would be shot by the Red Hand Defenders’ — a move that earned him
nine months in prison. The 46-year-old served his sentence on the loyalist wing
of Maghaberry Prison, admission to which is by invite only from the UDA or UVF.
In 2006 the high court seized half-a-million pounds worth of assets from
Boreland which prosecutors said were obtained via VAT fraud.”
4. The
article also reported that the complainant “was also arrested in connection
with the 2015 UDA murder of small-time drug dealer Brian McIlhagga […] before
being freed without charge.”
5. The
article headlined “Tensions rising on north coast as hotel raided and guns
stolen“ reported on a police raid of a hotel. It reported that the “UDA in
Coleraine and Ballymoney is led by close friends [named individual…] and Marcus
Borland, who sometimes works as a doorman at [the hotel which was raided]”.
6. The
first article appeared online in substantially the same form under the headline
“Antrim UDA boss Marcus Boreland accuses rivals of dirty tricks over son’s
‘cocaine’ video”. The second article also appeared online in substantially the
same form, under the headline “Northern Ireland hotel raided by police probing
UDA criminality”.
7. The
complainant said that both articles were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. With
regards to the first article, he said that the headline’s use of the phrase
“UDA boss” was extremely inaccurate. He said that the body of both articles
were also inaccurate, as the “unfounded allegation” that he was a UDA boss was
repeated, and the articles’ narrative placed him at the centre of criminal
activity. He said that this narrative had no foundation in reality.
8. The
complainant also said that, contrary to the first article’s statement that he
had been “arrested in connection with the 2015 UDA murder of small-time drug
dealer Brian McIlhagga […] before being freed without charge”, he had never
been arrested in relation to this alleged offence. To support his position, the
complainant supplied an email from a solicitor, which said as follows:
I
confirm that I have checked through my files and have no record of you having
been questioned by police about the murder of Brian McElhagga [sic] on 5th
January 2015. You are adamant that you were never spoken to about this matter.
9. The
publication said it did not accept that either article was inaccurate. It said
that the information regarding the complainant’s alleged role as a “UDA leader”
had been gleaned from a number of reliable sources over the years, and it
provided several articles it had published over the previous decade which
referred to the complainant in this manner. The publication also noted that the
complainant had not previously complained to the publication about the
reporting of this allegation and – while it did not consider this to be proof
of the truth of the allegation – said that the consideration of the history of
uncontested reporting was part of the care taken over the accuracy of the
article.
10. The
publication further noted that the complainant had been jailed in 2016 for
“making sectarian death threats on behalf of the Red Hand Defenders group”, and
said that this group was a cover name for the UDA. To support its position on
this point, the newspaper provided an article from a different publication,
which referred to the group as “a cover name used by elements in the UDA and
Loyalist Volunteer Force”. The publication also said that the complainant had
served his sentence on “the segregated loyalist wing of Maghaberry Prison which
is open only to UVF and UDA members”. It therefore did not consider that it was
a breach of Clause 1 to refer to the complainant as a “UDA leader”.
11. The
previous articles provided by the publication to support its position on this
point referred to the complainant as: a “UDA gangster” who “heads up a small
UDA unit”; the “UDA[‘s…] commander in the town”; a “paramilitary boss”; a “UDA
boss”; and one of two “UDA leaders”. The articles were published between 31
July 2011 and 6 December 2020.
12. The
publication said that it had put the allegation regarding the complainant’s
alleged role within the UDA to him previously, for an article published in
December 2020. The complainant had denied the allegation, and his denial was
included in the first article under complaint.
13. With
regards to the first article’s claim that the complainant “was also arrested in
connection with the 2015 UDA murder of small-time drug dealer Brian McIlhagga
[…] before being freed without charge”, it said that this information had also
been provided by several sources and had been reported “extensively in the past
without contradiction or complaint”; it provided its own article which it said supported its position on this point. It said
that it had no way to check this allegation against court records or similar
where – as acknowledged by the article – the complainant had never been charged
in relation to the crime.
14. The
article provided by the publication to support its position that there was a
history of uncontested reporting regarding the complainant’s alleged arrest
said as follows: “UDA members in the area murdered small-time drug dealer Brian
McIlhagga in 2015” and “Marcus Boreland […] was questioned by police following
the murder of Brian McIlhagga in Ballymoney last year. He was later freed
without charge.”
15. The
newspaper said that it had first reported the claim regarding the complainant’s
alleged arrest in 2016 and – given the length of time that had passed since the
original report and the subsequent complaint – the journalist had not retained
their notes, and could not recollect if the complainant was contacted for
comment in relation to this allegation. It said that it had not considered it
necessary to put the allegation to the complainant on this occasion, given the
fact that the information had been provided by trusted sources and where the
complainant had not contested previous reporting of the alleged arrest.
16.
However, shortly after IPSO commenced its investigation and as a gesture of
good faith, the publication said that it would be prepared to publish a
clarification setting out the complainant’s position with regards to the
allegation:
In an
article published on 6 February, 2022 we stated that Marcus Boreland had been
arrested in connection with the 2015 UDA murder of small-time drug dealer Brian
McIlhagga in Ballymoney, before being freed without charge. Marcus Boreland has
subsequently contacted the Sunday Life, via the IPSO complaints process, to
state that he was never arrested in connection with the matter.
It
proposed to publish the clarification on page 8 of its print edition and as a
footnote to the online article headlined “Antrim UDA boss Marcus Boreland
accuses rivals of dirty tricks over son’s ‘cocaine’ video”.
17. The
complainant said that he had not previously complained to IPSO about the
allegations which he considered to be inaccurate – the links between him and
the UDA, as well as the information about him having been arrested in relation
to Mr McIlhagga’s death – because he was not aware of IPSO and the fact that it
could offer a way for complainant to raise alleged factual inaccuracies within
published articles. He said that he had previously contacted a journalist
working for the newspaper, via his solicitor, to make it aware that he
contested the accuracy of the claim that he had been arrested in relation to
the murder of Mr McIlhagga. However, he said that his legal representative had
no record of this contact with the publication, as his acting solicitor had
since moved practice.
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
18. The
Committee considered first the complaint about the allegation that the
complainant was a “UDA boss”. There was a history of reporting, dating back
over a decade prior to the publication of the articles under complaint,
referring to the complainant as having some form of leadership role within the
UDA. While any allegation of criminality was denied by the complainant – and
this position was set out in the first article under complaint – the
publication had set out its basis for linking the complainant with the UDA: he
had been held in a prison-wing which was only accessible to UVF and UDA members
and had been convicted for making death threats under a cover name for the
organisation. The publication had also said that a number of anonymous sources
had linked the complainant with a leadership role in the UDA, though it had not
provided the sources submissions to IPSO. These points had not been disputed by
the complainant.
19. Taking
all these factors into account – the history of reporting which referred to the
complainant as having some sort of leadership role in the UDA; the links between the complainant’s conviction
and subsequent incarceration on a prison wing which was only accessible to UVF
and UDA members; and the inclusion of the complainant’s denial within one of
the articles (where, in print, both articles appeared on the same page and
side-by-side) – the Committee considered, on balance, that the publication had
taken care in line with the terms of Clause 1 in reporting that the complainant
was a “UDA boss” (in the first article) and that he was one of two individuals
who “led” the “UDA in Coleraine and Ballymoney” (in the second article). There
was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
20. Turning
to the claim that the complainant “was also arrested in connection with the
2015 UDA murder of small-time drug dealer Brian McIlhagga […] before being freed
without charge”, the Committee noted that the complainant’s comment had been
sought on this specific allegation prior to publication. It further noted that
while the newspaper was entitled to rely on anonymous sources, extra steps did
need to be taken to ensure that care was taken with regards to the accuracy of
the claim, especially given the
seriousness of the allegation. There was no record of the publication having
taken these extra steps – for instance, contacting the PSNI for an
on-the-record comment, or seeking comment from the complainant’s legal
representative. The publication had sought to rely on its own previous
reporting to support its position on this point, but the article it had cited
only said that the complainant had been “questioned” in connection with the
incident, rather than arrested.
21. The
Committee recognised that, where the claim related to an arrest that allegedly
took place over 8 years ago, it may be difficult to corroborate the claim or
access its notes from its contemporaneous reporting. However, one step clearly
available to the newspaper was to contact the complainant and put the
allegation to him. The publication had no record of having sought comment in
relation to the specific allegation regarding Mr McIlhagga’s death, and the
complainant’s denial of this allegation was not included in the article under
complaint.
22. The
Committee did not consider, therefore, that the publication had taken care in
reporting that the complainant “was also arrested in connection with the 2015
UDA murder of small-time drug dealer Brian McIlhagga”, and there was a breach
of Clause 1 (i) on this point, where it presented an allegation against the
complainant as fact in a misleading manner, in circumstances where the
newspaper could not demonstrate that the complainant had been arrested and had
not published the complainant’s position on the matter.
23. The
Committee noted that the email provided by the complainant from his solicitor
did not state, as fact, that the complainant had never been arrested in
relation to the matter; rather, it said that the writer had no record of the
arrest, and that the complainant strongly disputed that he had been arrested.
Therefore, the Committee considered that it was not in a position to resolve
the discrepancy between the two accounts given by the publication and the
complainant. However, it considered that – given the serious nature of the
allegation – clarification was required under the terms of Clause 1 (ii),
putting the complainant’s position on record.
24. The
publication had offered to publish the following wording, setting out the
complainant’s position with regards to the allegation against him, on page 8 of
the print edition – the same page as the original article – and as a footnote
to the online article:
In an
article published on 6 February, 2022 we stated that Marcus Boreland had been
arrested in connection with the 2015 UDA murder of small-time drug dealer Brian
McIlhagga in Ballymoney, before being freed without charge. Marcus Boreland has
subsequently contacted the Sunday Life, via the IPSO complaints process, to
state that he was never arrested in connection with the matter.
25. The proposed wording clearly set out the
complainant’s position that he had not been arrested in relation to the
charges. The Committee also considered that the locations proposed for the
wording to be published were duly prominent, where they appeared in the same
approximate location as the original misleading information. The publication
had proposed to publish the wording shortly after IPSO’s investigation had
begun, and had therefore proposed the remedy with sufficient promptness.
Therefore, where the wording set out the complainant’s position and was offered
promptly and the proposed location was duly prominent, there was no breach of
Clause 1 (ii).
Conclusion(s)
26. The
complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).
Remedial
Action Required
27. The
clarification which was offered clearly put the correct position on record, and
was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.
Date
complaint received: 17/03/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/09/2022
Back to ruling listing