Decision of the Complaints Committee 02496-14 Forrest v Daily Record
Summary of complaint
1. Lesley Forrest complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Record had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Parking mad trucker
tried to spear me with a 7ft metal pole”, published on 24 November 2014, an
article headlined “Pole attack lorry driver avoids jail”, published on 5
December 2014, and an article headlined “Bragging yob”, published on 15
December 2014.
2. The complainant’s son, Christopher Forrest, had been
given a community payback order and ordered to pay compensation after throwing
a metal pole at a man during a dispute over a parking space, whilst he had been
driving a lorry. The newspaper published the first article under complaint
after Mr Forrest had pleaded guilty to culpable and reckless conduct. The
second article under complaint was published following Mr Forrest’s sentencing.
The third article under complaint was published following a Facebook post by Mr
Forrest in which he referred to the fact that he had not been sentenced to a
prison term.
3. The 24 November article initially reported that the
pole was 7ft long. Later in the article, it was reported that the fiscal
procurator had told the court that Mr Forrest “picked up a 3m metal bar that’s
used for holding delivery cages in place”. The later articles reported that the
pole was 10ft long (3m is approximately 9ft and 10 inches). The later articles
reported that the pole was “so heavy our staff struggled to carry it”, and that
Mr Forrest was a “Co-op driver”. The 5 December article contained a quotation
from the victim’s son, who said that “there were reports saying that [Mr
Forrest] was depressed”.
4. The complainant said that the outside width of Mr
Forrest’s lorry was 7 ft 11 inches, and that the inside width was therefore 6ft
6 inches. She said that the pole was therefore approximately 6ft 6 inches long,
and that the maximum legal weight for the pole was 25kg. She said that it was
carried in to court by a policeman, with one hand, with no sign of it being
heavy. The complainant raised concern that one of the articles had referred to
the pole missing the victim by millimetres, whereas the other articles had
reported that it had missed by inches. The complainant said that to her
knowledge, the contents of the background reports were not mentioned in court.
She said that her son was not an employee of the Co-op, but worked with an
agency, and that her son had not “pulled up in his lorry”, as reported in the
24 November article, but that he had been parked when the victim took the space
he had been waiting for.
5. The newspaper provided a copy of the notes taken by
the reporter who had been present at the earlier court hearing. The note said
that Mr Forrest had pleaded guilty to throwing a metal bar, and it referred to
depression. The newspaper said that the 24 November article had made reference
to the pole being 7ft long as this was the length estimated by the victim. It
said that the procurator fiscal had stated in court that the pole was 3m long,
and that the inconsistency in the reported length of the pole in the 24
November was a consequence of these two differing estimates being given. It
said that a 3m pole of this type would be hard to carry by its nature. It said
that its information about the sentencing hearing had come from the Sheriff’s
court. With respect to Mr Forrest’s employment, the newspaper said that it
understood that Mr Forrest had been making a delivery to the Co-op, and that
the Co-op had sent a hamper to the victim, by way of apology. In relation to
the claim that the court staff had struggled to lift the pole, the newspaper
said that the difficulty of lifting the pole had been mentioned in court.
Relevant Code Provisions
6. 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.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
7. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s position
that the pole was 6ft 6 inches long, whereas the articles under complaint had
claimed that it was 7ft long, then 10ft long, as well as reporting that the
fiscal procurator had described it as 3 m long. However, it was not in dispute
that the complainant’s son had thrown a large metal pole with sufficient force
to break through a windscreen – and that he pleaded guilty to the criminal
charge which resulted from that conduct. In this context, the variation between
the reported length of the pole, and the length given by the complainant, was
not significant so as to give rise to a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy).
8. The photograph that accompanied the article on 24
November gave an indication as to the width and breadth of the pole, and it was
accepted by the complainant that it was up to 6 ft 6 inches long, and subject
to a maximum weight of 25 kg. In addition, the photograph appeared to depict
the pole as having passed through the car windscreen, and the fiscal procurator
was reported as saying that it had also smashed the driver’s side door. In
these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the pole was heavy, and
it did not have sufficient grounds for establishing that the reference to the
court staff struggling to carry the pole was significantly misleading. There
was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
9. Whether Mr Forrest was a driver for the Co-op, or
whether he was employed by an agency to make deliveries for the Co-op, was not
a significant detail. In addition, in the context of the incident as a whole,
no significance was attached to whether Mr Forrest pulled-up to the victim, or
was already parked.
10. In circumstances where the pole had narrowly missed
the victim, any difference between the pole missing the victim by millimetres
or inches was not significant. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
11. The complainant did not dispute that depression had
been raised in the background report. As such, the Committee did not establish
that it was inaccurate to report the comments of the victim’s son. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusions
12. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received 14/12/2014
Date decision issued: 25/03/2015