Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 03055-22 Lane v walesonline.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Jeff
Lane complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
walesonline.co.uk (Reach PLC) breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in an article headlined “Huge area of native Gower woodland
destroyed in 'worst offence of its kind seen for 30 years'”, published on 20
April 2022.
2. The
article was a court report detailing a man’s conviction for “breaching section
17 of the Forestry Act, along with noncompliance with an enforcement notice to
restock trees which he had previously felled in 2019”. It said he had “felled
more than eight hectares of native and wet woodland […] without holding an
appropriate licence”. It reported that after a “warning notice was issued to
restore the site” and the man was “advised not to carry out further felling”, a
2020 aerial photograph established that a further 457 cubic metres of woodland
had been felled. The article contained two images of the land side by side –
one showing significantly fewer trees, and another marked with “2015”. The two
images were captioned “Images taken five years apart showing the disappearance
of a large area of native woodland”. The article also reported that it was
understood the man was appealing the conviction.
3. The
complainant, the man convicted, said that the article was inaccurate in breach
of Clause 1. He said that the notice he had been sent had been addressed to a
different farm including the particulars of that land, rather than the land he
owned, and therefore it was inaccurate to report he had received a notice. The
complainant also disputed that he did not have an appropriate licence to fell
the trees as he had a felling licence which ran until 2023.
4. The
complainant also said that the inclusion of the side-by-side images was misleading as he had only bought the land in 2017, whereas the image depicted
the land in 2015. He said that the land had not looked as it did in the
published 2015 image at any point after he bought it. He also believed it had
been taken at a time of year when the foliage was at its most full, and had
concerns the photograph had been manipulated. The complainant said that the
article had referred to the land as a “forest”, “ancient woodland” and
“wetland” whereas the deed he had signed described it as “agricultural land”.
He also said he had only removed dead, decaying and fallen trees and that he
had not made any financial gain from felling the trees.
5. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the information
in the article under complaint had been heard in court and provided a press
release issued by Natural Resource Wales (NRW) to support this. The publication
said that it was entitled to rely on the press release, and by doing so it had
taken care not to publish information which was inaccurate, misleading or
distorted and that that whilst the complainant may have disagreed with his
conviction, it had accurately reported his conviction and what was heard in
court. In addition, it noted that the article made clear that the complainant
was appealing the decision.
6. Of
the remaining points, the publication said that it did not consider the use of
the photograph to be misleading where it was clearly indicated that the
photograph was taken in 2015, and the same photo had been included in the press
release. It also noted that the article did not use the terms “ancient
woodland” or “forest”. It said it was entitled to use “woodland” and “native
and wet woodland” and use the term “forestry” as these were taken from the press
release, and it did not consider them to be a misleading description of the
land.
7. The
complainant accepted that he had been found guilty of "noncompliance with
an enforcement notice to restock trees", although he did not agree that he
had was guilty of this, and noted it had been decided he was to have a retrial
at the Crown Court. The complainant was passed the press release as supplied by
the publication, and whilst he disputed his conviction, he did not state that
the press release misrepresented what had been said in court.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
8. The
Committee made clear that newspapers are responsible for accurately reporting
what is heard in court; they are not responsible for the accuracy of what is
heard by the court. In this instance, whilst the complainant disagreed with the
outcome of his trial, but accepted that the article accurately reported his
conviction, it was not inaccurate for the newspaper to report this. The
Committee also noted that the article made clear that the decision was subject
to an appeal. It was, therefore, not inaccurate to report that he had been
convicted of not complying with the notice, or for felling trees without the appropriate
licence. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
9. The
Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns about the use of the 2015
photograph. The Committee noted that the more recent 2020 image used in the
article had been provided by the NRW in their press release about the
complainant’s conviction and it was not in dispute that the 2020 image showed
the area of the felling for which the complainant had been convicted. The
Committee accepted the complainant’s concern that the earlier image was taken
up to two years before his ownership however it also noted that the complainant
accepted that its appearance would vary over time and with seasonal changes in
any case. In the Committee’s view it was
not misleading for the publication to provide a comparative photograph which
showed, in general terms, how that same area had looked when more fully
populated with trees and at a reasonably recent point in time. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on this point.
10. The
terms used in the press release relating to “woodland”, “native and wet
woodland” and “forestry” had been accurately reported from the press release,
which the complainant had seen but had not disputed. In addition, the Committee
acknowledged the complainant’s position that he had only removed the dead,
decaying and fallen trees and that he had not made any financial gain from
felling the trees; however, this did not render the article an inaccurate
account of what was heard in court. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
Conclusion(s)
11. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
12. N/A
Date
complaint received: 20/04/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/09/2022
Back to ruling listing