Decision of the Complaints Committee 02473-15 Dorries
v Bedfordshire on Sunday
Summary of
complaint
1. Nadine Dorries complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Bedfordshire on Sunday had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Nadine
Dorries says she ‘won’t attend hustings’ if rival candidate is there”,
published online on 3 April 2015 and in print on 5 April 2015.
2. The article reported that the complainant would not be
attending a hustings prior to a general election if a rival Independent
candidate was present. It stated that the complainant had previously complained
to the police about this candidate, but that the CPS had not taken any action
on the matter. The article included comments from the candidate, explaining why
he was standing for election and stating that he had “for over a decade
campaigned in support of victims of injustice and corruption”.
3. The complainant said that it was inaccurate to state
that “no further action” had been taken in relation to the other candidate’s
behaviour towards her and that the police had previously issued him with a
warning. She also said that it was inaccurate to describe him as a “marketing
consultant and writer”, when in fact he worked in a sandwich shop. She said
that he was not from the village Harlington as reported, but was from
Australia, and while he may spend time in the village, he did not own or lease
any property within the area. Furthermore, the complainant considered it inaccurate
to state that the other candidate “campaigned for victims of injustice”.
4. The newspaper defended the accuracy of its coverage.
The information about the other candidate had been provided by him in writing
as part of research that the newspaper had conducted for another article,
introducing all local parliamentary candidates. The candidate was entitled to
define his own occupation, and where he considered himself to be from.
Furthermore, he was named as on “online marketing consultant” in material published
by polling organisation YouGov, and his campaign material listed his address as
in Harlington. The newspaper noted that the complainant had not provided
sufficient grounds to support her contention that the other candidate had not
campaigned for victims of injustice. In relation to the complaints by the
complainant to the police about his conduct, the newspaper had been provided
with an official statement by the CPS, making clear that no further action had
been taken.
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,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
Findings of the Committee
6. In a report of a hustings, the newspaper was entitled
to publish biographical material provided by a candidate in support of their
candidacy. This did not raise a breach of Clause 1.
7. The complainant had not disputed that the CPS had
taken no further action in relation to her complaints against the other
candidate. The newspaper had obtained statements from the police and CPS on
this point, and was entitled to report the position of the authorities. This
was not inaccurate or misleading.
Conclusions
8. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 08/04/15
Date decision issued: 18/05/2015