· Decision of the Complaints Committee 04896-15 Beaton v Press & Journal (Aberdeen)
Summary of
complaint
1. Archie Beaton complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Press & Journal breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Sentence
deferred on former social worker”, published on 2 June 2015.
2. The article reported that the complainant’s sentencing
had been postponed, and summarised his recently concluded trial.
3. The complainant said that the article inaccurately
reported that he had “admitted intimidating an Inverness trader”. He had not
admitted to the offence; he had pleaded not guilty and had been found guilty
after trial. The complainant was also concerned that the article had reported
that “he had harboured a grudge against [the victim] after [the victim] had
asked him, ‘Do you like Viking helmets?’” He said that he had not harboured any
such grudge; while the victim had claimed this in court, the complainant had
contested it.
4. The complainant had contacted the newspaper directly,
several weeks prior to contacting IPSO, but had not received a response to his
complaint.
5. The newspaper said that it had received the
complainant’s letter, but it had not been passed to the person responsible for
dealing with complaints. Instead, the person who had received the letter had
arranged for a correction to be published unilaterally. The newspaper said that
its normal procedures for handling complaints had not been followed, and
apologised to the complainant. The newspaper had published the below correction
on page 2 of the newspaper. It later also amended the online version of the
article and appended the correction as a footnote.
“Court report
In a report from Inverness Sheriff Court published on
June 2 it was incorrectly reported that Archie Beaton, of 93 Mackintosh Road,
Inverness, admitted ‘intimidating’ a street trader when, in fact, he was found
guilty after pleading not guilty and going on trial.”
6. The newspaper acknowledged that the complainant had
not admitted intimidation; the inaccuracy was due to human error and had been
corrected when the newspaper was first contacted by the complainant. It said
that the article as a whole had made clear that the complainant had stood trial
and been “found guilty”. It said that the reference to the complainant’s
harbouring a grudge was an accurate record of what was heard in court. It said
that its total coverage of the case, which comprised several articles, made
clear that the complainant had disputed the allegations and that he felt he had
been “victimised”. The newspaper did not believe that the reference complained
of was significantly inaccurate or requiring of correction.
7. The complainant said that the published correction had
not addressed both his points of complaint; did not include an explicit
acknowledgement of error; and had not included an apology.
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.
Findings of the Committee
9. The newspaper had reported in error that the
complainant had admitted intimidation. There was a failure to take care over
the accuracy of the article. As a result, the article under complaint did not
properly reflect the court proceedings, misrepresenting the complainant’s
position. The inaccuracy identified by the complainant was significant and
required correction under Clause 1 (ii) of the Editors’ Code. While the
complainant was concerned that the correction — which had already been
published — had not included an apology, the Committee noted that he had been
convicted of the charges against him, and the newspaper had promptly
acknowledged its error. The Committee was satisfied that an apology was not
required on this occasion.
10. The newspaper was obliged to report the court
proceedings accurately; it was not obliged to independently verify the
information heard there. It was accepted by the complainant that it had been
heard in court that he had harboured a grudge against his victim following a comment
about his appearance; there was no failure to take care over this aspect of the
article and a correction was not required under the Code.
11. The Committee expressed concern that the newspaper
had never responded to the complainant’s letter, and that the correction had
been published without first notifying him. The Committee welcomed the
newspaper’s prompt admission that this did not represent a high standard of
complaints handling, and its apology to the complainant.
Conclusions
12. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (Accuracy).
Remedial Action Required
13. The newspaper had already published a correction
which addressed the significant inaccuracy established by the Committee. This
correction was a satisfactory remedy under the Code, notwithstanding the
concerns already recorded about the manner in which it had been published. No
further action was required.
Date received: 06/08/2015
Date concluded: 21/10/2015