· Decision of the Complaints Committee 04219-15 Archbold v Edinburgh Evening News
Summary of
complaint
1. Kathryn Archbold complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Edinburgh Evening News had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief
or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Dead
soldier faced court over assault”, published on 28 May 2015.
2. The article reported that David Glover, a former
soldier, had been found dead the week he was due to appear in court accused of
assaulting his ex-girlfriend. The complainant was the ex-girlfriend referred to
in the article.
3. The complainant said that her former partner, who was
the father of her son, had not been due to appear in court charged with her
assault the week he died, as reported in the article and its headline. Mr
Glover had been charged with assault in 2011, and the matter had been dealt
with then; his apparent suicide was unrelated to those charges. At the time of
his death, Mr Glover had access to their son and the complainant’s relationship
with him was civilised.
4. The complainant expressed particular concern that the
newspaper had failed to report the facts accurately at a time when her son was
dealing with the tragic news of his father’s death. She said an apology was
insufficient for the damage the article had caused.
5. The newspaper accepted that its report contained
serious inaccuracies, and it immediately removed the article from its website.
It apologised unreservedly for any upset the article had caused, offered to
publish a correction and to meet with the complainant to discuss the matter
further. It suggested the following wording for publication in its Corrections
column on page two, and in the news section online:
Our report of May 28, entitled “Dead soldier faced court
accused of hitting ex”, wrongly stated that the late David Glover, 28, of
Ormiston, East Lothian, had been due to appear in court accused of assaulting
his former partner shortly before his death. Mr Glover had in fact been due to
face charges of supplying cocaine and possession of cannabis, which he denied,
and had been sentenced to community service for assaults last year. We
apologise unreservedly for the error and the distress which it had caused.
6. The newspaper explained that the report had been
submitted by an experienced freelance court reporter, who had covered the court
case involving Mr Glover and the complainant the previous year. Mr Glover had
been charged with two counts of assault, which had taken place in February 2011
and March 2013, and a third charge of breaching bail conditions in June 2013.
7. Earlier in 2015, the reporter learned that Mr Glover
was due to appear in court charged with supplying cocaine and possession of
cannabis, and he made a note of the trial date in his diary. When Mr Glover
died, the reporter decided to report on the upcoming court case and he
retrieved the notes relating to the charges, including those from the previous
year. He noted the charges down on separate pieces of paper, but mixed the
pages up, giving the impression that the more recent charges related to the
assaults. He said he was deeply sorry for the upset his mistake had caused the
complainant and her family.
8. With regards to the complainant’s concerns under
Clause 5, the newspaper said Mr Glover’s death had already been widely
reported, and it had taken care not to include details relating to the apparent
suicide. It considered that there was a clear public interest in reporting that
an individual facing court proceedings appeared to have taken their own life.
It contended that had the court proceedings been correctly identified, its
report would not have breached the Code.
9. The complainant said she did not want a correction or
a further article published.
Relevant Code Provisions
10. 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.
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be
given when reasonably called for.
Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
i). In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries
and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication
handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings, such as inquests.
ii. When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid
excessive detail about the method used.
Findings of the Committee
11. The reporter had mixed up his notes relating to David
Glover’s court appearances, as a consequence of which the newspaper had
inaccurately reported that Mr Glover had been due to appear in court charged
with assaulting the complainant the week he died. This represented a serious
failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, which had caused
significant distress to the complainant and her family in breach of Clause 1
(i).
12. On receipt of the complaint, the newspaper had
immediately apologised, removed the article from its website and offered to
publish a correction. The wording the newspaper had suggested for the
correction had addressed the inaccuracy and included an unreserved apology,
which the Committee considered was appropriate in the circumstances.
13. The complainant had also framed her concerns under
Clause 5. The purpose of Clause 5 is to ensure that, in cases involving
personal grief or shock, stories are presented appropriately and sensitively,
and enquiries are made with sympathy and discretion.
14. The inaccurate article had caused considerable
distress to the complainant at a time of grief. The Committee had recognised
that this represented a serious failure to take care in its findings under
Clause 1. On balance, however, it did not consider that the inaccuracy had
separately represented an intrusion into the complainant’s grief in breach of
Clause 5. The article had not included gratuitous information, nor had it
included excessive detail about the manner of Mr Glover’s death. The complaint
under Clause 5 was not upheld.
15. The complainant had not requested an opportunity to
reply. The terms of Clause 2 were not engaged.
Conclusions
The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (Accuracy).
Remedial Action Required
16. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required.
17. Due to the significance of the inaccuracy, the
Committee considered whether to require the publication of an adjudication.
18. However, the newspaper had reacted appropriately to
the complaint when first alerted to the matter. It had recognised the
inaccuracy, accepted responsibility for it, removed the online article, and
offered to publish a correction that clearly addressed the inaccuracy, and
included an unreserved apology.
19. The Committee had regard for the complainant’s
position that she did not want the newspaper to publish a further article on
the matter. However, the Committee recognised that other individuals might have
a legitimate interest in the correction of this significant inaccuracy, such as
family members and friends of the deceased. A correction was therefore required
to set the public record straight.
20. In light of these considerations, the Committee
decided that the publication of the proposed correction on page two in print
and online, as suggested by the newspaper, was sufficient to meet the
requirement of the Editors’ Code. The correction should clearly note, however,
that it is being published following a complaint upheld by IPSO. It should be
published without delay.
Date complaint received: 24/06/2015
Date decision issued: 15/10/2015