Decision of the Complaints Committee 06223-19 Sutcliffe v
The Mail on Sunday
Summary of Complaint
1. David Sutcliffe complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Key aide to Harold
Wilson in No 10 ‘spied for Czechs too’”, published on 2 June 2019.
2. The article reported that according to declassified
Czechoslovakian intelligence files, Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s
Parliamentary Private Secretary from 1964 to 1967, Ernest Fernyhough, “spied
for Czechoslovakia’s secret police”. The article explained what was in the
files: that Mr Fernyhough had met with a number of Czechoslovakian
‘handlers’ based in London, who assigned
him a code name and that he had been described by one of them as his “most
valuable source of information”; that Mr Fernyhough was given a formal rating
which meant that he was a “confidential contact”; that it was recorded that he
had “access to a lot of important information”; that he had provided
intelligence which included details of Harold Wilson’s telephone calls with the
US President and discussions about devaluing the pound; and that Mr Fernyhough
had received gifts from the Czechs, including alcohol, chocolates and a free
holiday to Czechoslovakia. It explained that Mr Fernyhough died in 1993.
3. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same terms with the headline “Revealed: Key aide to Prime Minister Harold
Wilson spied for Czechoslovakia and passed on secret on secret details of phone
calls with President Lyndon Johnson”. The online version included a number of
bullet points below the headline, one of which said “Downing Street aide Ernest
Fernyhough spied for Czechoslovakia’s secret police”.
4. The complainant, the grandson of Mr Fernyhough, said that
it was inaccurate to describe his grandfather as having “spied for
Czechoslovakia”. He said that following the article’s publication, he wrote to
the head of the Czech Security Services archive, who said that she “refused”
the allegation that Mr Fernyhough spied for the Czech Foreign Intelligence
Service; she said that in her opinion, Mr Fernyhough was unaware that he was
dealing with intelligence officers, and did not really ever say anything
important or confidential. He also provided an article which appeared on an English
language Czech website following the publication of the article under complaint
reiterating these comments from the Czech Security Services archive. He queried
the accuracy of the files relied on by the publication, as he said that the
files showed that his grandfather was considered by the Czechoslovakians to be
on the right of the Labour party which he said was not the case, and did not
enjoy chocolate, which the files reported he accepted as a gift. He said that
the claims made against his grandfather in the article had caused him and his
family much distress.
5. The publication did not accept that there was a breach of
the Code. It said that the article explained that the description was based on
Czechoslovakian intelligence files, which it had established were genuine. It
said that the reporter specialised in researching Eastern European archives,
and had contacted the Czech Security Services archive to request files relating
to several British politicians; Mr Fernyhough was included because he was known
to be on the left of the Labour party, and had been associated with political
movements linked to Eastern bloc spy recruitment. The reporter gathered these
files in person and interviewed the head of the archive – the same person
contacted by the complainant – who confirmed in writing that the files were
genuine. He also corroborated details in the files, such as the dates of Mr
Fernyhough’s employment and those of the handlers’ time in the UK, with
official records.
6. The publication said that having established that the
files were a genuine and reliable record of Mr Fernyhough’s relationship with
Czechoslovakian intelligence agents, the contents provided a basis to claim
that he “spied” for Czechoslovakia. It said that the files showed that Mr
Fernyhough was assigned a handler who he met with multiple times at the
handler’s request, was given a code name and accepted gifts. As such, he was
considered by the Czechoslovakian secret services to be a reputable source of
confidential information. Furthermore, the files recorded that Mr Fernyhough
carried out “minor operational tasks” on behalf of his handlers, including
being “willing to carry out active measure in parliament”. It said that it
appeared that at least some of the information provided by Mr Fernyhough was
confidential and not in the public domain at the time he shared it with the
agents; for example, details of telephone conversations between Mr Wilson and
the US President, and the files said that the accuracy of these reports from Mr
Fernyhough “was fully confirmed by later developments”. The publication
accepted that it was possible that Mr Fernyhough was unaware who he was talking
to, or the Czechoslovakians’ motives, but this was not significant; he clearly
volunteered information which was of benefit to the Czechoslovakian agents.
However, it said that it was unlikely that Mr Fernyhough, a senior civil
servant at the height of the Cold War, would have been unaware of the
sensitivities around disclosing information to Eastern bloc diplomats.
7. The publication also noted that “spy” was clearly the
publication’s own characterisation of Mr Fernyhough because it was presented in
inverted commas, and it amended the online version of the article to
incorporate this. Although it noted that the complainant did not have any
first-hand knowledge of the issues reported in the article, and the email from
the Czech Security Service archive did not deny that Mr Fernyhough could have
been acting knowingly on behalf of Czechoslovakia, nor that he had been given
some reward for his assistance, it said that it was happy put the complainant’s
position on the matter on record. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, it
offered to publish the following wording as a footnote to the online article:
“The family of Ernest
Fernyhough would like to state that the director of the Security Services
Archive in Prague, [name], has said she does not accept the allegation that Mr
Fernyhough spied for the Czech Foreign Intelligence Service. [Name] said she
thinks Mr Fernyhough met with Czech diplomats but did not know they were
intelligence officers.”
Relevant Code Provisions
8. 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.
Findings of the Committee
9. The newspaper’s claim that Mr Fernyhough had “spied” for
Czechoslovakia had been based on declassified Czechoslovakian intelligence
files. The article reported that according to these files, Mr Fernyhough was
considered to be a valuable source of confidential information by
Czechoslovakian secret agents with whom he met; he was considered to be a
“confidential contact”; he had provided details of phone discussions between
the Prime Minister with the US President and discussions concerning the devaluation
of the pound; and that he had received gifts from the agents, including a free
holiday to Czechoslovakia. Where the article made clear that this information
from the declassified documents was the basis for the description of Mr
Fernyhough as a “spy” for Czechoslovakia, there was no failure to take care
over the accuracy of the claim, and no breach of Clause 1(i).
10. In addition to the points above which were included in
the article, the publication provided further declassified intelligence files during
IPSO’s investigation which demonstrated that Mr Fernyhough carried out “minor
operational tasks” on behalf of the Czech intelligence agents including being
“willing to carry out active measure in parliament” and that the accuracy of
the information provided by Mr Fernyhough was “…fully confirmed by later
developments”. The Committee acknowledged that whilst it was possible that Mr
Fernyhough was not knowingly acting on behalf of Czechoslovakia, it was clear
that he had passed information of value to Czechoslovakian secret service
agents, when he held a position close to the Prime Minister which gave him
access to confidential information and at a time of heightened security
concerns between the UK and Eastern bloc countries. As such, and where this engagement
with Czechoslovakian agents was made clear as the basis for the description, it
was not significantly inaccurate to describe Mr Fernyhough as having spied for
Czechoslovakia. In relation to the online version of the article, which did not
use quotation marks to describe Mr Fernyhough as a spy, the Committee
considered that this did not give rise to any significant inaccuracy – the main
body of the article, like its print counterpart, clearly set out the contents
of the intelligence files on which the description was based. As such, there
was no significant inaccuracy in describing Mr Fernyhough as a spy for
Czechoslovakia, and no correction was required under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
Conclusions
11. The complaint was not upheld
Remedial Action Required
12. N/A
Date complaint received: 20/08/2019
Date complaint issued: 18/02/2020
Back to ruling listing