· Decision of the Complaints Committee 06194-15 Mace v Gloucester Citizen
Summary of complaint
1. Charlotte Mace complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Gloucester Citizen had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Couple
jailed for attacking three sisters”, published on 2 October 2015.
2. The front-page headline referred to an article on page 2
with the headline “Couple’s ‘nasty’ assaults had no racist undertones”. The
article reported that the complainant and her partner had been convicted of
attacking three Asian sisters, but cleared of having a racist motive for the
attack, following a trial at Gloucester Crown Court. It explained that the case
had been adjourned for sentence until 22 October.
3. The online article did not contain any reference to the
couple being jailed, and was substantively similar to the print version that
appeared on page 2.
4. The complainant said that it was inaccurate to report
that she and her partner had been jailed, as sentencing had been adjourned at
the conclusion of the trial. She said that the front-page headline had caused
damage and stress to her and her partner.
5. The newspaper accepted that the headline on the
front-page was inaccurate. It said that a sub-editor composing the front-page
caption close to deadline had misread the article on page 2 and wrote that the
couple had been jailed, rather than convicted. However, it said that the
caption on the front page referred readers to the court report on page 2, where
it was made clear that sentencing had been adjourned until 22 October. The
newspaper said it was approached by the family of the complainant’s partner
after publication, and published the following correction, headlined “Mark
Ridler and Charlotte Mace case”, in a prominent position on page 6 of the next
edition of the newspaper on 5 October:
In a picture on the front page of Friday’s Citizen, we
incorrectly stated that Charlotte Mace and Mark Ridler had been jailed for an
attack on three sisters. While they have been convicted of the attack by a
jury, sentencing has not yet taken place. We are happy to make this
clarification. Mace, 24, and Ridler, 27, both of Tolsey Gardens, Gloucester,
were found guilty of assault causing actually bodily harm against three Asian
sisters in an attack which took place in August 2012. They were cleared of
racially aggravated assaults against the sisters.
6. On being contacted
by the complainant following publication of that correction, the newspaper told
the complainant that it would cover her and her partner’s sentencing hearing,
and depending on the outcome, was willing to publish an interview with them
both. It said that after it published an article on the pair’s sentencing
hearing, which appeared in a prominent position on page 8 with the headline
“Couple spared jail for attacking three sisters”, the complainant had turned
down the opportunity of an interview. In addition to these measures, the
newspaper said that it would be willing the re-publish the correction on page
2, where the original article had appeared.
Relevant Code Provisions
7. 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.
Findings of the Committee
8. The newspaper had accepted that the front-page headline
was inaccurate, and that the complainant and her partner had not been jailed
following conviction. The error that occurred in the editorial process
represented a failure to take care over the article’s accuracy in breach of
Clause 1(i), and a correction was required in order to avoid a breach of Clause
1(ii).
9. On receipt of a complaint from the family of the
complainant’s partner, the newspaper had published a prompt correction on page
6 which made clear that the pair had not been jailed following their
conviction. While the wording of this correction was sufficient to avoid a
breach of Clause 1(ii), the Code states that a significant inaccuracy must also
be corrected with “due prominence”. While in general this will mean the same
page or further forward than the page where the article originally appeared,
this will not always be the case; the Committee recognises that publications
may use other means – such as established corrections columns – to ensure
corrections are sufficiently prominent. The correction in this case was
published in the top half of the page with a large headline and was accompanied
by a photograph of the complainant and her partner. The newspaper had also
published a sizable news piece about the pair’s sentencing hearing, the
headline of which made clear that the pair had not been jailed; this
effectively represented a second correction of the original inaccuracy. Taken
together, these corrective actions satisfied the prominence requirements of
Clause 1(ii).
Conclusions
10. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
11. In circumstances where the newspaper had published a
prompt and effective correction, and follow-up, which complied with the
requirements of the Code, the Committee was satisfied that no further remedial
action was required.
Date complaint received: 8/10/2015
Date decision issued: 25/01/2015