Resolution
Statement – 02389-20 Shoebridge v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. Douglas
Shoebridge complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or
shock), and Clause 14 (Confidential Sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Father pleads for authorities to save his son’s life
after he was sentenced to death in Thailand for trying to smuggle half a TONNE
of ice for the Hells Angels”, published on 10 March 2020.
2. The
article reported that a man had been sentenced to death by the Thai authorities
for drug smuggling. According to the article, based on the claims of the
convicted man’s father, the man and his wife had been arrested following a
tip-off from an informant, who was named. The informant was described as “an
international fugitive wanted by Thai authorities on human trafficking charges
over a worldwide sex ring.” The article reported that the informant claimed he
had been on a boat with the man who had been convicted during a “drug
operation.” The article also reported a claim from the convicted man’s father
who claimed his son was framed by the informant “because he would not lend him
money,” as well as a claim from the father that the convicted man’s lawyers
that the prosecution’s “only evidence” was the evidence of the informant.
3. The
complainant, the man named in the article as the informant, said that the
article breached Clause 1 on several points. He first said that it was
inaccurate to describe him as an “international fugitive”, because he said that
no international arrest warrant had been issued. He accepted that there had
been an arrest warrant issued against him for human trafficking but it was
inaccurate to allege that this was in relation to a “worldwide sex ring” – the
complainant said that the prosecution witness in the case had later retracted
her statement as originally provided to the court. He also said that he was not
present on a boat with the convicted man during any drug operation; he said
that he had been on a boat with the convicted man during what he believed to be
an expedition to hunt for gold, and said that he only became aware that the
convicted man wanted the complainant to dive for drugs after the convicted man
drunkenly confessed on a later boat trip together. He also said that, contrary
to the convicted man’s father’s claim which was reported in the article, he had
not framed the convicted man because the convicted man would not lend him
money, and Thai investigators and prosecution had multiple pieces of witness
testimony and evidence other than his own. He also said that the article breached
Clause 4 and Clause 14.
4. The
publication did not accept that the article breached Clause 1. It said that the
complainant’s arrest warrant issued in Thailand referred to a number of victims
and was for charges relating to trafficking for prostitution. It also said that
the complainant left the country shortly after the warrant was issued. As such,
it said that it was not inaccurate to describe him as an “international
fugitive” wanted in relation to an alleged “sex ring”. It also said that the
complainant had told the court that he had been present on a boat when the
convicted man confessed that he was searching for dumped drugs, and this was
also the basis of the complainant’s statement which he had supplied to the
authorities. Although the newspaper accepted that the complainant had told the
court that the convicted man’s wife owed him a substantial sum of money rather
than the convicted man himself, it said that this did not represent a
significant inaccuracy and was clearly presented as the one of the claims made
by the convicted man’s father, rather than a point of fact.
Similarly,
it said that it was a claim attributed in the article to the convicted man’s
father that lawyers that the “only evidence” supplied by the prosecution was
the evidence of the complainant’s testimony. The publication said that it did
not consider that Clause 4 or Clause 14 were engaged by the complaint.
5. Notwithstanding
the above, the publication offered to amend the article to make clear the
complainant’s position that he believed the “drug operation” was in fact an
attempt to search for gold.
Relevant
Code Provision
6. 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.
7. Clause
4 (Intrusion into grief or shock
In cases
involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with
sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions
should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings
8. Clause
14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists
have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information
Mediated
Outcome
9. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
10. During
IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered to remove the article.
11. The
complainant said that this would resolve his complaint.
12. As
the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make
a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 04/04/2020
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 01/10/2020