Decision of the Complaints Committee - 05337-19 Cameron v
Sunday Mail
Summary of complaint
1. Daniel Cameron complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Sunday Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and
Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“MEN BEHIND THE MAYHEM”, published on 23 June 2019.
2. The article reported on a number of nightclubs in Glasgow
which were described as being illegal in light of concerns that drugs were
being openly sold and taken at the clubs. The article centred on a particular
club and identified three people who it said had promoted the club and
advertised its events on social media. It also stated that they had put “their
names and faces at the forefront of being responsible for the events”, that
they were “BEHIND THE MAYHEM” and that they were “behind” the club’s social
media.
3. The article also appeared online on the dailyrecord.co.uk
on the same day under the headline: “Trio involved in promoting illegal Glasgow
drug club unmasked”. It was in substantially the same format.
4. The complainant, one of the three people who was named in
the article, said it was inaccurate to report that he promoted the club and
that it had given the misleading impression that he was responsible for its
events. He said that he merely posted information about who was playing at the
club and was a moderator of its private Facebook group. He was also concerned
that the article had used his involvement with the club’s Facebook group to
suggest that he was involved in promoting illegal drugs.
5. The complainant also said that the article’s claim that
he “could not be reached for comment” was inaccurate. The complainant said that
he was not given any fair opportunity to respond, which he believed he should
have had in the circumstances.
6. Finally, the complainant said that the article breached
Clause 2 (Privacy) as linking his name and photograph with the story could not
be justified as this could have adverse effects on his personal and
professional life.
7. The publication maintained that the article was accurate.
It also did not accept that it was inaccurate to state that Mr Cameron “could
not be reached for comment” as, whilst he had not answered, they had tried to
reach him by calling both the club and a number which they understood to be the
complainant’s personal phone number. The publication provided a contemporaneous
note on which the personal number was written but which the complainant
disputed was his.
8. The publication offered to include a statement from the
complainant in the article putting his position on record. This offer was
declined.
9. The publication also disputed that it had breached Clause
2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code. The photo of the complainant and the fact
that he was a moderator of the club’s private Facebook group was information
that was publically available. It provided screenshots to evidence this
position.
Relevant Code Provisions
10. 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.
Clause 2 (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. In considering an individual's
reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own
public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material
complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
Findings of the Committee
11. It was not in dispute that the complainant was
identified as a moderator of the club’s Facebook group on which the club’s
events were advertised or that he sometimes posted about the club’s events. As
such it was not inaccurate or misleading for the article to report that he
“promoted” or “advertised” events at the club; that he was “behind” the club’s
social media; or that he put his name and face “at the forefront of being
responsible for” the club’s events. There was therefore no failure to take care
not to publish inaccurate or misleading information in breach of Clause 1(i)
and no significant inaccuracies requiring correction in breach of Clause 1(ii).
12. The article set out the basis for the claims that this
venue was a “drug club” and that its events were “drug-fuelled”, namely that
its undercover investigation – which was reported in an accompanying article –
had found that drug-taking at these events was widespread and visible. The
article did not claim that the complainant was responsible for or promoted any
illegal drug-taking; the article’s claims about him were limited to his
involvement in advertising and promoting the club and its events. There was
therefore no failure to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading
information in breach of Clause 1(i) and no significant inaccuracies requiring
correction in breach of Clause 1(ii) in respect of the claims made about
illegal activities at the club.
13. The complainant was not in a position to dispute that
the publication had attempted to contact him, even though it was not
successful. The Committee noted that the newspaper had provided a
contemporaneous note in support of the reported claim that the complainant
“could not be reached for comment”; this meant only that the complainant could
not be reached in the way the reporter had attempted. As such, there was no
failure to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information in
breach of Clause 1(i), and no significant inaccuracy requiring correction in
breach of Clause 1(ii).
14. The Committee noted the complainant's position that he
was not given a fair opportunity to respond before publication. The Editors’
Code does not require a publication to contact the subject of an article before
an article is published, but the opportunity to respond must be given in
respect of any significant inaccuracies which are published. For the reasons
explained above, the Committee did not consider that the article contained any
significant inaccuracies, and the terms of Clause 1(iii) were not engaged.
15. The photograph of the complainant only revealed his
likeness and did not show anything private about him. It was also publically
available as his Facebook profile picture. The complainant’s status as
moderator of the Facebook group was also in the public domain and did not
reveal anything of a private nature. There was therefore no intrusion into the
complainant’s private life in breach of Clause 2 (Privacy).
Conclusion
16. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
17. N/A.
Date complaint received: 15/07/2019
Date complaint concluded: 02/12/2019