Decision of the Complaints Committee – 06159-19 McGurk v
oxfordmail.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. John McGurk complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that oxfordmail.co.uk breached Clause1 (Accuracy) of the Editors'
Code of Practice in an article headlined "Dangerous' Ferrari driver John
McGurk from Stratford-upon-Avon convicted of lying after Oxfordshire
'race'" published on 5 July 2019.
2. The article reported that a Ferrari driver, who was on
trial for "an alleged street 'race'", had been "cleared of
dangerous driving but convicted of lying about who was the driver." The
article reported that the complainant, the driver of the vehicle, was
"found not guilty of dangerous driving and guilty of doing acts tending to
pervert the course of justice". Regarding his conviction, the article
reported that the complaint had "between September 4 and October 18 2017,
pursued a course of conduct which amounted to perverting the course of public
justice by nominating somebody else as the driver". It reported that
prosecutors had claimed that the complainant had "lied to police by
falsely claiming that somebody else had been behind the wheel at the
time", in order to "frustrate the police investigation into dangerous
driving". It reported that it had been claimed that the complainant had
driven at "up to 80mph", "before overtaking in a line of cars
before a bend…".
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate. He
said the headline was misleading as it referred to him as
"dangerous", when he was not convicted of dangerous driving. The
complainant also said there was no "race" as reported in the article
and that it was inaccurate to report that he was convicted of lying about who
was the driver. He said that he was convicted for sending letters which
obstructed the police investigation; he had nominated himself as the driver
within the 28 day period, and did not claim that another individual was behind
the wheel. Further, the complainant said that he did not "overtake a line
of traffic" as there was only one car; the accusation was that he had
overtaken traffic on double white lines but nevertheless he was found not
guilty of this charge. The complainant also said that the reporter was not in
attendance at court on the day of the hearing.
4. The publication denied that the article was inaccurate.
It said that the complainant was described as "dangerous" in court by
a witness and that a witness had described the incident as a "race".
The publication said that the article presented the terms in speech marks in
the headline and this made clear these points were the claims of witnesses. It emphasised
that the article reported the details of his conviction accurately. The
publication provided the charge sheet from the trial which stated that the
complainant was on trial for committing an act/series of acts with intent to
pervert the course of justice. Regarding the details of this charge, it stated
that the complainant had sent a series of letters seeking to frustrate the
investigation into an offence of dangerous driving by nominating another
individual as the driver. That the complainant had later nominated himself as
the driver was irrelevant; he was convicted of this offence and the article had
reported this accurately. The publication said that the complainant had
misinterpreted the article, which did not report that it was claimed he overtook
a line of cars and instead reported that it was claimed he overtook ‘in’ a line
of cars. The publication provided the reporter's notes from the trial, which it
claimed supported the accuracy of the information in the article.
5. The complainant did not dispute that he was convicted of
the charge of perverting the course of justice as outlined on the charge sheet,
but disputed that he had perverted the course of justice by nominating somebody
else as the driver as reported. The complainant said that he had sent letters
to the police requesting further information regarding the timing of the
offence in which he suggested that he may have been conducting test drives at
the time. However, the complainant said that this did not constitute nominating
another individual as the driver. The complainant provided a copy of the
letters to IPSO.
6. Notwithstanding its position that there was no breach of
the Code, during IPSO's investigation the publication offered to amend the
headline to "Ferrari driver jailed for perverting the course of justice
after lying about who was behind the wheel". It also offered to publish a
clarification with the online article which stated:
"The headline of this article was amended to reflect
the fact McGurk was found guilty of perverting the course of justice, but
cleared of dangerous driving"
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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.
v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the
outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an
agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
Findings of the Committee
8. The headline stated that the complainant was
"dangerous" and that he was found to have lied after a
"race". The Committee noted the publication's position that these
were the claims of witnesses. However, it was misleading to refer to these
claims in a headline that summarised the details of the complainant's
conviction, in circumstances where the complainant was found not guilty of the
dangerous driving offence and this was reported in the article; the claims in
the headline were not supported by the text. This represented a failure to take
care not to publish headlines not supported by the text in breach of Clause
1(i). A clarification was required under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
9. The amended headline removed the claims of the witnesses
and reported the offence for which the complainant was convicted, as reported
in the text of the article. The Committee considered that the amended headline
and the clarification offered by the newspaper during IPSO's investigation
clarified the position with due prominence. This was sufficient to avoid a
breach of Clause 1(ii).
10. The charge sheet provided by the publication stated that the complainant had sent letters seeking to frustrate the investigation and that he had nominated another named individual as the driver. In obtaining the charge sheet, sending the reporter to court to hear the case, and the production of contemporaneous notes, the newspaper had taken care not to publish inaccurate information regarding the conviction. The Committee took into account the letters sent by the complainant to the police in which he had suggested that another person may have been driving the car at the time of the offence. While these letters were not available to the newspaper prior to publication, the position advanced by the complainant in the letters corroborated the description of the offence on the charge sheet and as reported in the article. Given that the complainant had been convicted of perverting the course of justice, the Committee did not consider that it was significantly misleading to report that the complainant was convicted of lying about who the driver was. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
11. The article made clear that it had been claimed that the
complainant had overtaken ‘in’ a line of cars, as opposed to overtaking a line
of cars which the complainant accepted was the charge against him. The
distinction between the reported claim and the complainant’s position did not
represent a significant inaccuracy in circumstances where the article had made
clear that he was acquitted of this charge. There was no breach of Clause 1 on
this point.
12. The complainant's wider concerns regarding the
reporter's attendance at court did not engage the terms of the Editors Code.
Conclusions
13. The complainant was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial Action Required
14. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required.
15. The publication amended the headline and had offered to
publish a clarification in a prominent position and sufficiently promptly as to
meet the requirements of Clause 1(ii). This should now be published to avoid a
breach of Clause 1(ii).
Date received: 16/08/2019
Date concluded by IPSO: 03/04/2020