Decision of the Complaints
Committee
03194-18 Purcell v The Daily
Mirror
Summary
of complaint
1. Dean Purcell complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Daily Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Cops to thug: Tell us if you
get new lover”, published on 16 April 2018.
2. The article reported that the
complainant had been issued with a Criminal Behaviour Order, which ordered that
for the next seven years he must, within three days of the third time he has
any sexual activity with a woman, give police her details so they can speak to
her. It said that in March 2018 the complainant had received a custodial
sentence after he had pleaded guilty to ABH and two counts of assault by beating
against his former girlfriend. It also reported that “charges of false
imprisonment, threats to kill, and a count of battery were left to lie on
file”.
3. The article reported a series of
events apparently leading up to the complainant’s conviction. The article said
that the complainant and his victim had moved into a flat and the complainant
was attending domestic violence meetings; “but he started to assault her,
initially by name-calling and slapping, before becoming ‘extremely controlling’
of her”. The article reported that “in November last year, an argument ended
with Purcell pulling her hair and biting her right ear”. It continued; “Later,
in bed, he accused [the victim] of having sex with other men, before covering
her mouth and nose with both his hands. The next morning, he said he would kill
her and then himself unless she told him the truth”. The article reported that
the complainant “grabbed a knife and only put it down when [the victim] again
reassured him”; it said that “the victim felt unable to leave because of
Purcell’s behaviour”.
4. The article was reported in
substantially the same form online on the same day, under the headline “Thug
who beat up ex-girlfriend must tell police if he starts having regular sex with
new lover”.
5. The complainant said that the
article had created an inaccurate and misleading impression of the conduct to
which he had pleaded guilty. He said that the article had presented the
allegations about his conduct which the victim had made against him, as though
they had been accepted by him as the basis for his guilty plea.
6. The complainant said that the
article had been based on an inaccurate police press release, which was subject
to complaint. He said that this press release had presented the allegations
made about his conduct as having been established by the court as fact; he said
that only the facts which he had accepted as part of his basis of plea, and
which had been referred to in his plea hearing, should have been reported on.
7. The complainant provided a copy
of his Basis of Plea. It recorded that the complainant had pleaded guilty to an
ABH charge on the basis of excessive self defence: “The defendant felt it
necessary to restrain the complainant. This involved holding her on the bed
with his body weight and holding his hand over her mouth in an apparent attempt
to prevent her making noise”.
8. During the course of IPSO’s
investigation, the complainant received the outcome of his complaint with the
police’s press release. The police confirmed that its press release “contained
information that had been alleged by the victim, but not accepted by the
defendant as a basis for his plea of guilty. His plea was on the basis of
excessive self-defence which was accepted by the prosecution”. The police
invited publications to remove reference to incidents not included in the Basis
of Plea.
9. The complainant also provided a
transcript of his plea hearing. This recorded that the two counts of assault
related to an incident where the victim’s hair was pulled, and one incident
where victim had received “a punch to the leg while they were in [the
complainant’s] car”.
10. The publication denied any breach
of the Code. It said that the article accurately reported the contents of a
statement from the police; it was reasonable to have relied on the veracity of
that statement and it was not a failure to take care to do so.
11. The
publication said that the complainant had subjected his female victim to
unacceptable violence to which he had pleaded guilty. It said that the mere
fact that there was an agreement not to include some matters as part of the
charge and sentencing did not mean that they were not alleged by the victim,
only that the prosecution decided not to proceed with them. The publication
said there was no doubt that these allegations formed part of the initial case
and that they were allegations that were proceeded with no charge. The
publication said that when it is clear that there has been an assault, the
method of assaulting a victim should not be a matter of significant inaccuracy.
12. Without
prejudice to this position, the newspaper offered, as a gesture of goodwill,
the publish the following correction on p.2 in its established Corrections
& Clarifications column, in order to clarify the complainant’s basis of
plea:
Our
article 'Cops to thug: Tell us if you get new lover'; 16 April 2018, accurately
reported a Police press release. Although it was previously heard in court that
Dean Purcell slapped,
name-called, bit the victim's right ear and covered the victim's mouth and nose
with his hands, we have been asked to clarify that his convictions of Actual
Bodily Harm and two counts of Battery related to restraining the victim by
holding her on the bed with his body weight, hair pulling and punching her
leg.
13. It also offered to publish the
following wording online as a footnote:
Although it was previously heard in court that
Dean Purcell slapped, name-called, bit
the victim's right ear and covered the victim's mouth and nose with his hands,
we have been asked to clarify that his conviction of Actual Bodily Harm and two
counts of Battery related to restraining the victim by holding her on the bed
with his body weight, hair pulling and punching her leg.
Relevant
Code Provisions
14. 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
15. It
was not a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, to rely on the
contents of a police press release which had been issued following the
complainant’s conviction. The publication was entitled to rely on the accuracy
of information from this official source. There
was no breach of Clause 1(i).
16. The article had accurately recorded
what had been heard during court proceedings; however it had failed to
distinguish between the allegations which were accepted by the complainant as
part of his guilty plea, and the allegations which were not. It reported, as
fact, that the complainant had name-called the victim; slapped her; bit her
right ear, and threatened her with a knife. These were not incidents which had
been accepted by the complainant in his basis of plea. Accordingly, the article
had given a significantly misleading impression of the nature and extent of the
conduct which had formed the basis of the complainant’s conviction. The
publication had offered to publish a print correction, in addition to an online
footnote; both of the wordings offered made clear the correct position. The
newspaper had taken this step promptly, upon receipt of the outcome of the
complainant’s complaint against the police press release and the court
transcript provided by the complainant. The publication of a correction on p.2
– further forward than where the original article appeared – in addition to an
online footnote represented due prominence. There was no breach of Clause 1(ii).
In order to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii), the newspaper should now publish
the corrections as offered.
Conclusions
17. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
18.
N/A
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The
complainant and the publication 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 either of the requests for review.