Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 06518-21 Extinction Rebellion v The Daily
Telegraph
Summary
of Complaint
1. Extinction
Rebellion complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “For the silent majority, failure to come down hard on
XR will be a surrender to mob rule”, published on 19th June 2021.
2. The
article reported on the activities and protests of Extinction Rebellion and
other campaign groups and the police response to these protests. It reported
that at previous protests, police forces “have allowed roads to be illegally
shut”, and that “[o]bstructing the highway is an offence, so police have the
right to arrest anyone as soon as they start to prevent traffic or pedestrians
from using roads or pavements”. The article went on further to discuss “Kill
the Bill” protests against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill,
including a photograph from one protest of a burning police van. The photograph
was captioned “police vehicles were set alight during a Kill the Bill protest
in Bristol”.
3. The
article also appeared online the same day in substantially the same format
under the headline “For the silent majority, police failure to come down hard
on Extinction Rebellion will be a surrender to mob rule”.
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as the
disruption of roads for the purpose of protest was not illegal. It relied on a
previous court judgment which it said stated that the right to protest does
include the right to do so on the highway. The complainant said that this
judgment highlighted the inaccuracies in the following sentence of the article:
“[o]bstructing the highway is an offence, so police have the right to arrest
anyone as soon as they start to prevent traffic or pedestrians from using roads
or pavements”.
5. The
complainant also said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as
it included an image of a burning police van, which had no connection to
Extinction Rebellion. The complainant considered the use of this image
“disingenuous” and an attempt by the publication to tarnish the group’s
reputation.
6. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the complainant’s
position regarding the legality of the obstruction of roads was incorrect,
citing examples where Extinction Rebellion protestors had been found guilty of
illegally blocking roads. It said that twelve Extinction Rebellion protestors
to date had been charged with the criminal offence of obstructing the highway
in connection with a recent protest, demonstrating the legislation still
applied. The publication noted the complainant’s reference to the previous
court judgment and said that while the judgment indicated that it is possible
that a protest may not constitute a breach of the Highways Act, this is only in
certain, limited circumstances. It added that the criminal offence of
obstructing the highway under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 remains on
the statute book.
7. The
publication further said that the photograph of the burning police van included
in the print article was taken during the ‘Kill the Bill’ protests in March
2021, with the accompanying text making this clear. The publication said that
at no point did the article suggest that it was members of Extinction Rebellion
who attacked the police van. It added that while the article’s focus was on the
protests organised by Extinction Rebellion, it raised broader points in respect
to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and referenced other
demonstrations which have taken place.
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
8. The
Committee first considered whether it was inaccurate for the article to state
that “[o]bstructing the highway is an offence, so police have the right to
arrest anyone as soon as they start to prevent traffic or pedestrians from
using roads or pavements” and that previously, police forces “have allowed
roads to be illegally shut”. In doing
so, the Committee had regard to Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 which
provides that “[i]f a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way
wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an
offence…”. The Committee also noted the judgment the complainant referred to
and acknowledged that an offence may not be committed under the Act in
circumstances where a court finds there to have been lawful authority or excuse
for a protest. However, it was the Committee’s view that as the criminal offence
of obstructing the highway under the Act remains on the statute book, it was
not inaccurate for the article to state that “[o]bstructing the highway is an
offence”, whilst omitting an explanation of the circumstances in which an
obstruction may not be such an offence. For the same reason, in was not
inaccurate to refer to roads having been “illegally shut”, given that whether a
protest has resulted in roads being shut illegally under the Act will be fact
specific. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
9. The
Committee next considered the complainant’s concerns regarding the photograph
of the burning police van. The caption above the photograph made clear where
the incident had taken place, stating that “police vehicles were set alight during
a Kill the Bill protest in Bristol”, and the Committee noted that the article
made no suggestion that Extinction Rebellion were involved in the burning of
the police van. Furthermore, where the article commented on the Police, Crime,
Sentencing and Courts Bill, and the “Kill the Bill” protests in response to it,
it was not misleading for a picture from the protest to appear alongside the
article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusions
10. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
11. N/A
Date
complaint received: 23/06/2021
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/11/2021