· Decision of the Complaints Committee 02238-15 Alouane v The Mail on Sunday
Summary of
complaint
1. Delene Alouane complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Mail on Sunday had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) and Clause 3 (Privacy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “1,000 fraudsters wed UK
women to get visas – not ONE is deported”, published on 8 February 2015.
2. The article reported that the Home Office had been
accused of failing to deport foreign “fraudsters” who had conned Britons into
marriage in order to obtain visas and money.
3. The complainant, the founder of campaign group
Immigration Marriage Fraud UK, said she had liaised with the newspaper about
the story, and the published article was not what had been agreed. She said the
newspaper had sensationalised the report by focusing on her colleague Kim Sow’s
story, instead of examining the issue of marriage fraud. She noted that it had
omitted quotations supplied by an MP and Migration Watch. She also said the
newspaper had inaccurately reported that she had founded the group with Kim
Sow; in fact, she had established the group in March 2013, and Kim Sow had
joined it in November 2014.
4. The complainant had raised her concerns with the
newspaper, but a correction was not published. As such, she considered that
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) had been breached.
5. The complainant said the newspaper had not reported
her full story, but had stated that she had lost £150,000 to her husband
following their break-up, in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy).
6. The newspaper said the reporter had shown the
complainant the copy in order to check the facts, not as a guarantee that it
was the final article to be published. Articles were always subject to editing.
The article had focused on Kim Sow’s story because it provided a good
illustration of the issues surrounding marriage fraud. It noted that the
reference to the amount of money the complainant had lost to her ex-husband had
formed part of the copy that she had agreed with the reporter.
7. The newspaper apologised for inaccurately reporting
that the complainant had founded Immigration Marriage Fraud UK with Kim Sow,
and it offered to correct the online article accordingly and to append a
footnote. It also offered to publish the following correction on page two of
the newspaper:
“On February 8 we wrote about the victim support group
Immigration Marriage Fraud UK. We would like to make clear that this was
founded in 2013 by Mrs Delene Alouane.”
Relevant Code Provisions
8. 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. In cases involving the
Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be
given when reasonably called for.
Clause 3 (Privacy)
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into
any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.
Findings of the Committee
9. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that the
newspaper had made significant changes to the copy that she had agreed before
publication. The newspaper, however, had been entitled to edit the copy and to
present the story in the way it saw fit, as long the article did not otherwise
breach the Code. In this instance, the newspaper had reported that the Home
Office had been accused of failing to combat marriage fraud, and had used Kim
Sow’s story to illustrate the issue. The omission of details regarding the
complainant’s case and quotations from an MP and Migration Watch had not
rendered the piece misleading. This point did not raise a breach of Clause 1.
10. The newspaper had explained that due to a subbing
error, it had inaccurately reported that Immigration Marriage Fraud UK had been
founded by the complainant and Kim Sow, rather than by the complainant alone.
However, given that the pair had been running the group together since November
2014, the Committee did not consider that readers had been significantly misled
by the inaccuracy. As such, a correction was not required, and this point did
not raise a breach of Clause 1. Nevertheless, the Committee welcomed the fact
that the newspaper had published a correction in print and online in response
to the complainant’s concerns. The complaint under Clause 1 was not upheld.
11. The newspaper had offered to correct the inaccuracy.
The complainant had not requested an opportunity to reply. There was no breach
of Clause 2.
12. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that by
disclosing the amount of money she had lost to her ex-husband, the newspaper
had breached Clause 3 (Privacy). The complainant, however, had consented to the
information being published. The complaint under Clause 3 was not upheld.
Conclusions
13. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 26/03/2015
Date decision issued: 19/05/2015