Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02471-20 Ahmed v thesun.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Faisal
Ahmed complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “WRITING’S ON THE WALL
Teacher sent to work at top secondary school despite being unable to READ and
write” published on 7 April 2019.
2. The
article reported that a teacher had been passed fit to teach by a teacher
training scheme even though he had “extreme difficulty with handwriting”,
reading problems, and “issues understanding written tests”. It reported that he
had been sent to the school despite struggling to read and write, that “the alarm
was raised days into his new job” and that the headmaster summoned him to a
meeting and suspended him. It reported that the man had dyspraxia and that he
told the headmaster that he could “hardly write” for “more than a couple of
minutes” as it was too painful. It reported that details of this “2016 scandal”
emerged after the man sued the school for constructive dismissal and disability
discrimination after “quitting in fury”. The article reported that an
employment tribunal “threw out” his claims, and that he lost an appeal.
3. The
complainant was the teacher referred to in the article. He said that the
article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it was not the
case that he was unable to read or write as reported in the headline, which
gave the impression that he was illiterate. He said that he could read and
write and that there were multiple passages in the tribunal judgments which
made this clear he also noted that he had two degrees, which he would not have
been able to obtain had he been “unable to read and write”. . The
complainant explained that he had difficulties with handwriting – due to hand
pain caused by dyspraxia – and reading comprehension speed and that he could
write using a keyboard and by the use of other technology; these difficulties
did not mean that he could not read or write. He said that the comments left
underneath the article – as well as being offensive – demonstrated that readers
had understood the article to be reporting that he was unable to read or write.
The complainant also said that it was misleading to report in the sub headline
to the article that he had “extreme difficulty with handwriting”, reading
problems and “issues understanding written tests”. He complained that the first
two claims, which were taken from the tribunal judgments, were misleading
because, in isolation, they added to the impression that he was illiterate,
rather than having specific difficulties arising from his dyspraxia. He said that the third of these claims was
inaccurate because it suggested that he had difficulties understanding words,
rather than difficulties with reading comprehension speed. He said that the article should have made
explicit that these difficulties were symptoms of his dyspraxia, and he was
concerned that readers may not link the article’s reference to his dyspraxia
with his comprehension and handwriting difficulties.
4. The
complainant raised further points under Clause 1. He disputed that he had been
employed at a “top school” – he said that it did not top any national league
table and that the school was not even the top school in the local area,
regardless of the fact that it had an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating.. He said
that he did not sue the school – rather he filed a claim against the Academy Trust
that it fell under. He said that it was misleading to say that he quit “in
fury” as this gave the impression that his decision was rash and he took legal
action without consideration. Furthermore, the complainant said that it was
misleading to say that the tribunal “threw out” his claims as he considered
that this implied his case was struck out or dismissed without a full hearing,
when in fact his claim had been decided on its merits following a five-day
hearing. He said that by reporting in the same sentence that he then lost his
appeal gave the impression that his appeal was rejected by the same tribunal,
rather than it being considered by the separate appeal tribunal.
5. In
addition, the complainant said the headline was misleading to say that he had
been “sent to work” at the school as it gave the impression this was a
unilateral decision by the teacher training scheme. Rather, the school
approached the scheme; he had, as confirmed in the tribunal judgment, been
“offer[ed] a Teach First contract” at the school. He also said it was
misleading to report that the teacher training scheme passed him as being fit
to teach – in fact, he had also been deemed medically fit to teach by several
occupational doctors including by one commissioned by the school. He said that
the article was inaccurate to describe dyspraxia as simply a “co-ordination
condition” when it was a nuanced, diverse, and severe condition, particularly
as the article did not expressly state that his difficulties with comprehension
speed and with handwriting were symptoms of his dyspraxia. The complainant also
said that it was inaccurate to describe his original departure from the school
in 2016 as a “scandal” – he said that there was no reporting by the media at
the time. He also said that it was misleading to say that “the alarm was
raised” days after he began teaching at the school because this implied that he
had concealed his learning disability from the school which was not the case.
Finally, the complainant said that reporting that he had failed in his tribunal
and appeal without including criticism of the headteacher added to the
misleading impression that his case was foolish and baseless.
6. The
complainant also said that the article breached Clause 12. He said that by
inaccurately reporting that he was unable to read or write, this constituted a
pejorative and prejudicial reference to his dyspraxia, and may have a negative
effect on his future employment prospects. He also said that this was
exacerbated by the article’s overall tone that his disability claim was foolish
and without merit. He said that the article should have included a comment from
someone in the field of dyspraxia, and the condition should have been better
explained beyond describing it as a “co-ordination condition”. He noted again
that the comments left below the article were insulting, and he was concerned
about the effect the article would have on the wider dyspraxia community. The
complainant also said that the article breached Clause 12 by giving publicity
to his tribunal and appeal, and thus making his disability more widely
known.
7. The
publication did not accept that the article breached the Code. It said that the
complainant acknowledged that he had difficulties reading and writing, and the
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had accepted that the complainant has
dyspraxia which causes him to have “difficulties with reading, comprehension
speed and handwriting”. It also said that the EAT ruling described him as being
unable to write for more than a minute or two. It noted that the prominent
sub-headline of the article said that the complainant “had ‘extreme difficulty
with handwriting’, reading problems and ‘issues understanding written tests’”
and the first sentence of the article said that he was placed at the school
despite “struggling” with reading and writing. It said that these were accurate
summaries of the difficulties experienced by the complainant. It then said that
as such, the headline should be read in the context of the article as a whole,
and those who read both the headline and sub-headline together would not be
misled as to the level of the complainant’s difficulties. The publication also
said that the speed with which a reader ingests and assimilates the written
word is as much a part of his or her functional literacy as the ability to
understand the words; it therefore maintained that the complainant's difficulty
with comprehension speed could accurately be described as an “issue
understanding written tests". Nevertheless, in the publication’s first
response to the complaint, it offered to amend the headline to read: “WRITING’S
ON THE WALL Teacher sent to work at top secondary school despite struggling
with READING and writing” and to add the following footnote to the article:
“A
previous headline on this article described Faisal Ahmed as being ‘unable’ to
read or write. In fact, as the article made clear, he struggled with reading
and writing. We are happy to clarify.”
It also
offered to remove the online article from the publication’s website if this
would resolve the complaint. This was declined by the complainant.
8. The
publication said that it was not misleading to say that the complainant’s
claims had been thrown out – it said that it did not necessarily mean that the
claim had been struck out, but that the judgment had gone against him which was
accurate in this case. It said that it was not inaccurate or misleading to omit
the name of the legal entity against which the claim had been brought – in this
case the Academy Trust. It said that it was also not inaccurate to say that the
complainant quit “in fury” – it said that he was clearly angry at the school’s
treatment of him as he subsequently spent two and half years pursuing legal
action against the school. It said that it was not misleading to describe the
school as a “top school”; it was rated as “Outstanding” by Ofsted at the time
of publication. The newspaper did not accept that the rest of the points raised
by the complainant represented breaches of the Code.
9. The
publication said the article did not breach Clause 12 – the complainant’s
disability was central to the two judgments and so it was clearly relevant to
include details about his disability in order to report on the tribunal
proceedings. Furthermore, it said that the article’s descriptions of the
effects of the complainant’s disability were also central to the report. It
said that the article did not contain any prejudicial or pejorative references
to the complainant’s disability; it was a straightforward description of what
was set out in the tribunal. It noted that the complainant had simultaneously
tried to argue in his complaint that mentioning his disability was unnecessary,
but that the article should also have included more details about his
disability. When it was brought to its attention that the complainant
considered the readers’ comments to be racist and Islamophobic, it removed
these from the website.
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
12 (Discrimination)
i) The
press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race,
colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical
or mental illness or disability.
ii)
Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless
genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings
of the Committee
10. The
article was based on the judgments of the tribunals which the Committee
considered in order to assess whether the reported claims about the complainant
were inaccurate or misleading. The
headline of the article reported that the complainant was “unable” to read or
write. However, this claim was not supported by the tribunal judgments. It was
clear from the tribunal judgments that the complainant had been diagnosed with
dyspraxia and that it had heard that, as a result, he experienced difficulties
with his handwriting and with reading comprehension speed. The tribunals had
also heard that the complainant sought to overcome these difficulties by using
IT. In its finding, the Employment
Tribunal expressly noted that it was not in dispute between the parties that
the complainant had been suspended from the school because he was unable to
write for more than a minute or two due to hand pain, and that this difficulty
arose from his disability. Given that the nature of the complainant’s
difficulties were clear from the tribunal judgments, there was a failure to
take care over the accuracy of the headline in breach of Clause 1(i), with the
Committee noting that an accurate article cannot act as a correction for an inaccurate
or misleading headline. Reporting that the complainant was unable to read or
write, when this was not the position, represented a significant inaccuracy
which required correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
11. In
the publication’s first response to the complaint it offered to amend the
headline to delete the reference to the complainant being unable to read or
write and to report instead that he had become a teacher at the school despite
“struggling with reading and writing”, and to add a footnote to record this
change. While the Committee recognised that the publication had taken prompt
steps to attempt to address the complainant’s concerns, it found that the
action proposed was not sufficient. The proposed correction did not acknowledge
that the complainant is able to read and write and the footnote also omitted to
explain that the headline was being corrected for that reason. Therefore, the action offered by the
publication was not sufficient to put the correct position on record, and there
was a further breach of Clause 1 (ii).
12. The
sub headline and text of the article reported that the complainant had
"issues understanding written tests”.
It appeared that the publication had relied on a passage of the
Employment Tribunal judgment which had quoted a letter from an occupational
health doctor in which he noted that the complainant had an issue with
"comprehension of written tests”.
The Committee noted that this passage was open to interpretation, but in
the same paragraph of the judgment it was recorded that the complainant had
been certified fit to teach by the doctor.
Further, earlier in the judgment, the tribunal had made clear that
dyspraxia manifests itself, amongst other things, in difficulties with
comprehension speed. The report that the
complainant had issues "understanding” written tests did not reflect what
had been heard at the tribunal and the findings which had been made by the
tribunal as to the nature of the difficulties which are caused by dyspraxia and
from which the complainant suffers. There was, therefore, a failure to take
care under Clause 1(i) not to report misleading information. The distinction
between ‘difficulties with comprehension speed’ and ‘issues understanding
written tests’ was significant and a correction was required. The publication had not offered a correction
on this point and there was a further breach of clause 1(ii).
13. Turning
to the other alleged breaches arising from the sub-headline of the article, the
Committee noted that the report that the complainant had “extreme difficulty
with handwriting” had been taken from the judgment of the Employment Tribunal
and had been said by the complainant himself.
The tribunal judgments also acknowledged that the complainant had
problems with reading. These claims were
repeated in the text of the article which also reported that the complainant
suffers from dyspraxia and the Committee considered it was made sufficiently
clear within the body of the article that these difficulties were linked to the
complainant’s dyspraxia. The
Committee found that it was not misleading to describe the school as a “top
school” when it had been rated “outstanding” by Ofsted and it was not
significant in the context of the overall article whether the complainant
brought legal action against the school or the Academy Trust. There wasno
breach of Clause 1 on these points.
14. It
was the newspaper’s own characterisation of the complainant’s actions to
describe him as having quit “in fury” and this was not significantly misleading
where it was clear that the complainant felt strongly that his former employer
had acted unlawfully in its treatment of him and this led to him pursuing
claims in the Employment Tribunal. Where the complainant's claims had been
unsuccessful, it was not misleading to describe them as having been “thrown
out” and where it was made clear that the complainant had then appealed this
decision, the article was not misleading by having omitted that the appeal had
been heard by an appeal tribunal. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these
points.
15. It
was not inaccurate to report that the complainant had been “sent to work” at
the school – the placement had been organised by the teacher training scheme,
and the article did not claim that it was organised without the involvement of
the school. It was not misleading for the article to omit the fact that the
complainant had been certified as fit to teach by multiple occupational health
doctors when it was not in dispute that he had been so certified by the teaching
training scheme, as reported. It did not appear to be in dispute that dyspraxia
is a condition which affects co-ordination, and where the article was a report
of the legal action brought by the complainant and not a detailed examination
of dyspraxia, it was not inaccurate in the context of the overall article to
summarise dyspraxia as a “co-ordination condition”. That the complainant’s
appointment at the school was a “scandal” in the circumstances was reported as
the view of the publication. Whilst the complainant
disagreed with this description, it was a matter of opinion which the
publication was entitled to express. Reporting that “the alarm was raised” was
not inaccurate in circumstances where the tribunal heard that the headmaster
had not previously been aware of the complainant's difficulties, despite the
disclosures which he had made. Finally, the Editors’ Code does not include a
requirement for balance, as long as the Code is not otherwise breached. In this
case, omitting criticism of the headteacher, or implying that the complainant
had acted unwisely, did not raise a breach of the Code. For all of these
reasons, there was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
16. Although
it was inaccurate for the headline to say that the complainant could not read,
this was distinct from the issues raised under Clause 12. The question for the
Committee was whether this reference, and the other issues raised by the
complainant, constituted a pejorative reference to his disability – dyspraxia.
The Committee considered that claiming that the complainant could not read was
not a pejorative reference to his dyspraxia and the article did not seek to
mock or ridicule his disability. With regards to the rest of the article, the
complainant’s disability was at the heart of the claims which he pursued before
the tribunals and on which the articles were reporting. The publication was
entitled to comment on the merits of the complainant’s legal action – the fact
that the complainant’s disability was a key element of this legal action did
not mean that any criticism constituted a pejorative or prejudicial reference
to his disability. Furthermore, newspapers are free to select which information
to include in articles; the absence of a more detailed explanation of dyspraxia
or a comment from an expert in the field did not constitute a pejorative or
prejudicial reference to the complainant’s disability. There was no breach of
Clause 12.
17. The
complainant was concerned about the negative reaction to the article from
readers, and the effect that the article would have on the wider dyspraxia
community. However, Clause 12 seeks to protect individuals from discrimination
rather than groups – as such, the complainant’s concern that the article may be
discriminatory towards people with dyspraxia as a whole did not engage the
terms of Clause 12. Finally, the complainant raised concerns over the article’s
inclusion of details of his disability at all. However, the complainant’s
disability and the associated difficulties he had faced were genuinely relevant
to the story, where the article was reporting on his legal claims that his
former employer had harassed and discriminated against his as a result of his
disability. There was no breach of Clause 12(ii).
18. IPSO’s
regulations state that specific readers’ comments can fall within IPSO’s remit
as editorial content if they remain online after being reported to the
newspaper. In this case, although the complainant raised concerns about the
comments, he did not take steps to report them to the newspaper and did not ask
the Committee to consider whether the publication of any specific comments
raised a breach of the Editors’ Code. As such, the Committee did not make any
finding on whether the publication of these comments breached the Editors’
Code, whilst noting that the newspaper had removed them once the complainant’s
concerns had been brought to its attention.
Conclusions
19. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
20.
Having upheld a breach of Clause 1(i) and Clause 1(ii), the Committee
considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the
Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the
publication of a correction and/or an adjudication, the terms and placement of
which is determined by IPSO.
21. The
article headline reported that the complainant was “unable to read or write”
and the sub-headline and text of the article reported that the complainant had
"issues understanding written tests” The action proposed by the
publication was not sufficient to correct these significant inaccuracies as it
did not address that the headline had the potential to mislead readers into
believing that the complainant was illiterate, which was not supported by either
the article or the tribunal judgment. In addition, the proposed correction did
not address the misleading report that the complainant had issues understanding
written tests. Therefore, the Committee required that the wording of the
proposed correction should be amended to make clear that the complainant can
read and write and that he experiences difficulty with comprehension speed and
not understanding written tests. The Committee considered a correction to be
the appropriate remedy to the breaches of Clause 1(i), where the crux of the
article – the outcome of the tribunal and appeal – was not inaccurate,
misleading, or distorted.
22. The
Committee then considered the placement of the correction. It should appear as
a footnote to the original online article, and should make clear that the
complainant’s difficulties were linked to his dyspraxia. It should state that
it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press
Standards Organisation. The full wording and position should be agreed with
IPSO in advance.
Date
complaint received: 07/04/2020
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 26/08/2021
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The
complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process
followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints
Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request
for review.