Decision of the Complaints Committee 02412-15
Dangerfield v Sunday Herald
Summary of
complaint
1. Gordon Dangerfield complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Sunday Herald had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Tommy Sheridan’s
publicly-funded legal bill hits nearly £250k”, published online on 29 March
2015.
2. The article reported that former MSP Tommy Sheridan
had incurred legal costs of nearly £250,000 in an attempt to appeal his
conviction for perjury, and that the state was liable for these costs. It had
included the following statement from the complainant, Mr Sheridan’s solicitor:
“The cost of Tommy Sheridan’s defence is a matter for his former solicitor
Aamer Anwar and not for me. However, the cost to the public of Mr Sheridan’s
defence is a drop in the ocean of the millions spent by Rupert Murdoch”.
3. The complainant noted that he had offered a lengthy
comment to the newspaper, which included the following wording: “The cost of
Tommy Sheridan’s defence is a matter for his former solicitor Aamer Anwar, and
not for me. However, the cost to the public of Mr Sheridan’s defence is a drop
in the ocean of the millions spent by Rupert Murdoch, and then by the Scottish
police and Scottish Crown, to [omitted text]”. He said that the way in which
the comment had been edited rendered it misleading, as he had not intended to
compare money spent by Rupert Murdoch with the cost to the tax payer. Rather,
he had intended to contrast the public cost of Mr Sheridan’s defence with the
public cost of his prosecution.
4. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that the comment had been edited for legal reasons, as it had no way to
check the veracity of the complainant’s statement. It did not accept that the
way in which the comment had been edited had distorted its meaning. It said
that the comment published had conveyed the complainant’s main point; that
there were costs on both sides.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. 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.
Findings of the Committee
6. The newspaper was entitled to edit comments for legal
reasons, and it was not for the Committee to comment on any legal advice which
the newspaper had received. However, in editing material for these reasons, the
newspaper was required to ensure that any amendments to the comment did not
render it inaccurate or misleading, in breach of Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code.
7. The editing of the complainant’s comment had the
effect of highlighting only one of the arguments he had made, namely comparing
the costs of the defence to the significantly higher costs which had been
incurred by Mr Murdoch, and had omitted his further argument that the cost to
the public of pursing Mr Sheridan had also been significantly greater than the
cost to the public of Mr Sheridan's defence of the claim against him. However,
the quote as published had accurately reflected the comment made by the
complainant, and he had not disputed that he had specifically drawn attention
to the money which had been spent by Rupert Murdoch. While the comment as
published may not have conveyed the totality of the complainant’s view on the
matter, the publication of only one of his arguments was not significantly
misleading in breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
8. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 02/04/2015
Date decision issued: 18/05/2015