Decision of the Complaints Committee –03128-18 Fletcher v glaswgowlive.co.uk
Summary of complaint
1. Anthony Fletcher complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that glasgowlive.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) in an article headlined “Illegal Glasgow sperm donor admits to fathering 22 children”, published on 16 April 2018.
2. The article said
that the complainant, an “illegal Glasgow sperm donor”, had “defended his
actions by saying he is a ‘first resort’ for women desperate to have a baby”.
It said that “at first, he considered donating legally through a clinic but the
requirements that must be met…put him off”. The article stated that “it is
against the law in the UK to distribute or procure sperm and eggs without a
licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority”, and explained
the public health reasons for this prohibition. The article included extensive
quotations from the complainant, setting out his reasons for his actions, and
included a screenshot of a post on his Facebook profile, in which he described
the service he provided. The article went on to give the views of a specialist
in reproductive health, who stated that “these tales of ‘black market sperm
donation’ are becoming more common…but finding a donor online…is incredibly
dangerous”.
3. The complainant
said that the article was inaccurate to state that private sperm donations were
illegal: the publication had misinterpreted the law, and he was not “procuring”
or “distributing” sperm as a third party without a licence. He said that, in
fact, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority provided information
about private donation on its own website. The publication had not taken care
to check this claim or put it to him prior to publication. He said that the
article’s use of the term “black market” also wrongly implied illegality, and
suggested that he had charged for his sperm; in fact, he had never charged, and
the ‘legal’ concerns raised in relation to private sperm donation related not
to the act of donation itself, but to any difficulties arising from liability
for child support or legal recognition as a parent.
4. The publication
said that the original copy provided to it by an agency had referred to the
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 as the basis for the claim that the
complainant had acted “illegally”, and was published in good faith. It said that
the article accurately reported the terms of the law. However, the publication
conceded that it was inaccurate to state that the complainant had acted
illegally by engaging in private sperm donation. It therefore removed the
online article, and offered to publish the following correction online:
The 16 April article…stated that Mr Anthony Fletcher had
donated sperm ‘illegally’. In fact, private sperm donation is not illegal. We
would like to apologise for any misunderstanding.
The publication also said that the term “black market” had
been taken from the quotation from the reproductive health specialist. While it
could imply illegality in certain circumstances, in this case, where the
practice referred to in the article carried significant legal and health
implications, it was not significantly misleading.
Relevant Code provisions
5. 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
6. The publication had accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s actions were illegal. This was based on a misreading of legislation, which was publicly available. The reporter had not put the allegation to the complainant prior to publication, and none of the experts quoted in the article had claimed that private sperm donation was illegal. There was a serious failure to take care over the accuracy of published information, in breach of 1(i). The complainant’s conduct was not prohibited by law, and he made his donations with a full understanding of the legal position. The allegation of illegality was a significant and damaging claim, requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The seriousness of this inaccuracy was exacerbated by the headline’s prominent description of the complainant’s actions as “illegal”. While, in this article, the term “’black market’” – which carries a range of meanings, from clandestine to illegal - had been presented as a quotation from ‘health experts’, the use of this term in proximity to the claims of illegality gave support to those claims.
7. The publication had offered to publish a correction, making clear that the complainant’s actions were not illegal. This correction included an apology, which was appropriate, as the inaccuracy was serious and personally damaging. However, the Committee was concerned by the seriousness of the breach of Clause 1 (i) in this instance: the publication had published a damaging allegation without checking its accuracy. The resulting inaccuracy was very prominent in the article’s headline. For this reason, the newspaper’s offer of a correction was insufficient to meet the requirements of Clause 1 (ii) in this case. The complaint was upheld as a breach of Clause 1(ii).
Conclusions
8. The complaint
was upheld.
Remedial action required
9. Having upheld a
breach of Clause 1, the Committee considered what remedial action should be
required.
10. The publication had published a significantly misleading
article, which made a damaging and inaccurate allegation about the legality of
the complainant’s conduct. In these circumstances, the appropriate remedy was
the publication of an adjudication.
11. The article had appeared online only. The adjudication
should therefore be published online, with a link appearing on the homepage for
24 hours; it should then be archived in the usual way. The headline of the
adjudication must make clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint against the
Daily Record, and refer to its subject matter. It must be agreed with IPSO in
advance.
12. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as
follows:
Anthony Fletcher complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that glasgowlive.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined ““Illegal Glasgow sperm donor
admits to fathering 22 children”, published on 16 April 2018. The complaint was
upheld, and glasgowlive.co.uk has been required to publish this ruling as a
remedy to the breach of the Code.
The article described the complainant as an “illegal Glasgow
sperm donor”. It said that “at first, he
considered donating legally through a clinic but the requirements that must be
met…put him off”. The article went on to give the views of a specialist in
reproductive health, who stated that “these tales of ‘black market sperm
donation’ are becoming more common…but finding a donor online…is incredibly
dangerous”.
The complainant said that the article was inaccurate;
private sperm donation was not illegal. He said that the article’s use of the
term “black market” also wrongly implied illegality.
The publication said that the original copy provided to it
by an agency had referred to the relevant legislation, accurately reported in
the article, as the basis for the claim that the complainant had acted
“illegally”, and was published in good faith. It conceded that it was
inaccurate to state that the complainant had acted illegally by engaging in
private sperm donation. It therefore removed the online article, and offered to
publish a correction online. It also said that the term “black market” had been
taken from a quotation from a reproductive health specialist. Because the
practice referred to in the article carried significant legal and health
implications, it was not significantly misleading.
IPSO found that there was a serious failure to take care
over the accuracy of published information, in breach of 1(i). The allegation
of illegality was a significant and damaging claim, requiring correction under
the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
The publication had offered to publish a correction, making clear that the complainant’s actions were not illegal. However, the Committee was concerned by the seriousness of the breach of Clause 1 (i) in this instance: the publication had published a damaging allegation without checking its accuracy. The resulting inaccuracy was very prominent in the article’s headline. The newspaper’s offer of a correction was insufficient. The complaint was upheld as a breach of Clause 1(ii).
Date complaint received: 17/04/2018
Date complaint concluded: 09/08/2018