Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 06393-21 Minto v Sunday People
Summary
of Complaint
1. Carol
Minto complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Sunday
People breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “I spoke out about evil doc's abuse and it gave 100 others a
voice”, published on 6th June 2021.
2. The
article reported on an upcoming book written by the complainant in which she
detailed the abuse she had experienced as a child. It reported that, as a
child, she had been sexually assaulted by her brother for years before she
began to run away from home. The article explained that the complainant told
her mother and a social worker what had been happening, but that, instead of
helping her, her mother signed her into a psychiatric hospital. The article
reported that, whilst the complainant was in the hospital, she was drugged and
abused by a doctor. The article stated that the doctor “drugged her and
re-enacted the same abuse she had suffered at the hands of her father”. It
explained that when the complainant returned home, “her parents wanted to
‘ignore the past’”.
3. The
article also appeared online under the headline, “’I spoke out about evil
doctor’s abuse and it helped 100 others find their voice’”.
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because
it claimed that she had been abused by her father. She stated this was never
the case, as the only family member by whom she had been abused was her
brother. The complainant said that this inaccuracy had led her to receive messages
from others expressing their shock that she would label her father a child
abuser and that her wider family had become hostile towards her as a result.
5. The
publication said it acknowledged that there had been an error and said it was
“extremely regretful for the mistake”. It published the following correction
and apology on 13th June 2021 on page 6:
“A story
in last week’s Sunday People entitled ‘I spoke out about evil doc’s abuse and
it gave 100 other victims a voice’ on pages 24 and 25 contained an error. It
stated at one point that Carol Minto had been abused by her father when it
should have stated “by her brother’”. We apologise for this error and are happy
to set the record straight.”
6. It
stated that this was sufficient to correct the inaccuracy in line with the
requirements of Clause 1 (ii) as it was published in the following edition of
the newspaper and was published with due prominence as it appeared in the
established Corrections and Clarifications column on Page 6, whereas the
original article was published on pages 24 and 25.
7. The
publication explained that the online article had been corrected three days
after it had been published as a result after it was alerted to the error by
the journalist who wrote the book about the complainant. It said that, as the
error had been corrected quickly, and, given the sensitivity of the issue, no
footnote or standalone correction had been published online, which would have
meant ongoing republication of the inaccuracy. During IPSO’s investigation, the
publication added a correction to the top of the article that stated:
“Correction:
A previous version of this article stated that Dr Kenneth Miulner had
re-enacted the same abuse that Carol Minto had suffered at the hands of her
father. In fact, it was Carol Minto’s brother that had abused her, and not her
father. We are happy to clarify this and apologise for the error.”
8. The
complainant did not accept this as a resolution to her complaint.
Relevant
Code Provisions
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. There
was no dispute that, having initially correctly reported that the complainant
had suffered abuse by her brother as a young girl, part way through, the
article inaccurately referred to “abuse [the complainant] had suffered at the
hands of her father”. This error showed a clear failure on the part of the
publication to take sufficient care not to publish inaccurate information and,
therefore, the Committee established a breach of Clause 1 (i) of the Code.
10.
Given the gravity of the subject matter and traumatic experiences of the
complainant, this misidentification of the complainant’s abuser was significant
and therefore required correction, promptly and with due prominence, in
accordance with the terms of Clause 1 (ii) of the Code. It was also appropriate
for the publication to apologise, given that the inaccuracy related to a highly
personal, sensitive subject.
11. The
Committee considered the corrective action undertaken by the publication and
assessed whether it fulfilled the obligations of Clause 1 (ii). Regarding the
print version of the article, the publication had published a correction in the
next edition of the newspaper – published the following week – which identified
the inaccuracy, set out the correct position and apologised for the error. It
had been published in the newspaper’s established corrections column, on page
6, which was significantly further forward in the newspaper to the page on
which the article under complaint appeared. While the inaccuracy was clearly
highly significant and had caused the complainant significant distress, the
Committee concluded on balance that the corrective action taken by the
publication was sufficient to meet the requirements of Clause 1 (ii) of the Code.
12. The
online article had been updated three days after publication. The publication
said it had considered the sensitivity of the issue at hand and did not want to
repeat the error. Once the publication was made aware that the online article
formed part of the complainant’s complaint, it added the correction to the top
of the article, underneath the headline. The Committee noted that the error had
been corrected as soon as the publication had been made aware of it by the
journalist. The error was significant and sensitive, and the publication had
promptly corrected it in print. On balance, the Committee considered that there
was justification for not publishing a separate correction online in addition
to the amendment, in the absence of a complaint from the complainant. A
correction was added to the article as soon as the publication became aware it
formed part of the complaint and appeared beneath the headline of the article.
In the circumstances, this was sufficiently prompt and prominent and there was,
therefore, no further breach of Clause 1 of the Code in relation to the
correction.
Conclusions
13. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
14. The
published correction and apology put the correct position on record and was
offered and published promptly and with due prominence. No further action was
required.
Date
complaint received: 17/06/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/06/2021
Back to ruling listing