· Decision of the Complaints Committee 04893-15 Carroll v Belfast Telegraph
Summary of
complaint
1. Andrew Carroll complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Belfast Telegraph had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors' Code of Practice in an
article headlined “’Sam's Yer Man’ director sells home as police probe
suspicions his firm was sunk by employee fraud”, published on 5 August 2015.
2. The article reported that Sam Duff Jnr, a director of
S&R Electrics Limited – a Belfast electronic goods retailer popularly known
as ‘Sam's Yer Man’ – had put his house up for sale; the business had recently
closed down and been placed into administration. The article was accompanied by
a photograph of the house in question, as well as a description of the
property, its location and the asking price.
3. The complainant said the newspaper's report was
inaccurate because he was, in fact, the owner of the property, and Sam Duff Jnr
was his tenant. He said that following publication of the article, he had taken
the property off the market on the advice of his estate agent. He had also
hired security staff after the property had been visited by creditors of
S&R Electrics.
4. The complainant also said that the publication of a
photograph of his house alongside the original article, and the subsequent
publication in a correction to the article of his name as the owner of the
property, represented an intrusion into his privacy.
5. The newspaper accepted that the complainant was in
fact the owner of the property, and that the article had been inaccurate. It
said that the journalist, in researching the story, had checked the filing
history for S&R Electrics on the Companies House website and found the home
address of Sam Duff Jnr. The journalist then did a Google search of the address
and discovered that the house was listed for sale. Details of the property from
the Google search, as well as the photographs, were then published in the
article. No other checks were made in relation to the property.
6. Having been contacted by the complainant on the day
the article was published, the newspaper issued corrections, both in print and
online, on the following day. The online version of the article was also
amended to remove all mention of the property. The print correction appeared
under the heading "Andy Carroll" and said:
An article stated, incorrectly, that Sam Duff Jnr, a
director of S&R Electrics, is selling his Holywood home with an asking
price of more than £1m (News, August 5). In fact, Mr Duff is renting the
property, at Glen Road, and the house has been put up for sale by its owner,
Andy Carroll. We apologise to Mr Carroll for the error, which has since been
corrected online.
The online correction appeared under the heading “Andy
Carroll” and said:
An article stated, incorrectly, that Sam Duff Jnr, a
director of S&R Electrics, is selling his Holywood home with an asking
price of more than £1m (News, August 5).
In the newspaper’s view, publication of the correction on
page 12 in an edition containing 56 pages constituted due prominence in
accordance with Clause 1(ii) of the Code.
7. The complainant was not satisfied with the correction.
He pointed out that the original article appeared as the main story on page 4,
having being flagged on the newspaper's front page, while the correction was
placed in a 'side-bar' on page 12. In addition, the correction was published
under the heading "Andy Carroll", a heading that he said offered no
suggestion that a correction was being published underneath, or that the
correction referred to the S&R Electrics article.
Relevant Code Provisions
8. 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 3 Privacy
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into
any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in
private places without their consent. Note - Private places are public or
private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Findings of the Committee
9. In the circumstance where the property’s sale featured
in the headline, it was not sufficient for the publication to simply locate the
address of Sam Duff Jnr and proceed on the basis that he was the legal owner of
the property without any further checks to ensure that the assumption was correct.
The newspaper had failed to take care over the accuracy of the article, and the
Committee found that the established inaccuracy gave a significantly misleading
impression of both who was the owner of the property, and the reasons behind
the property's sale; the inaccuracy required correction under Clause 1 (ii) of
the Code.
10. The Committee welcomed the newspaper’s prompt
recognition that the article had been inaccurate, and the steps it had taken to
publish a correction and apology, and amend the online article. However, Clause
1(ii) of the Code states that a significantly inaccuracy must be corrected with
"due prominence"; generally this will mean the same page or further
forward than the page where the article originally appeared. The article had been
published on page 4 of the newspaper, but the correction appeared eight pages
further back on page 12. The prominence of the correction was not sufficient,
and the requirements of 1(ii) had not been met.
11. The photograph of the complainant’s house published
alongside the original article, and the subsequent publication of his name as
the owner of the property in the corrections, did not disclose any private
information about the complainant and did not raise a breach of Clause 3.
Conclusions
12. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (Accuracy).
Remedial Action Required
13. The Committee accepted that the original correction
was published promptly and in good faith; the wording of the correction
recognised the inaccuracy, and it contained an apology in the print edition. As
such, it was satisfied that re-publication of the correction in an appropriate
location would represent a sufficient remedy.
14. The newspaper was required to re-publish its
correction either on page 4, where the article was originally published, or
further forward in the newspaper. The correction should additionally state that
it had been re-published following a ruling by the Independent Press Standards
Organisation, with the word “correction” appearing in the headline. The full
wording must be agreed with IPSO in advance. The correction on the online
article should make clear that the article had been amended, and should be
published at the foot of the online article.
Date complaint received: 05/08/2015
Date decision issued: 30/09/2015