Decision of the Complaints Committee 06855-17 Dean v Daily Mail
Summary of complaint
1. Alan Dean complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “She’s a wife in a million”, published on 29 April 2017. The article was also published online with the headline “'She has saved me': Sgt Blackman tells how the love of his campaigning 'wife in a million' Claire won his freedom as he gives his first interview since being released from prison.”
2. The article reported that Sergeant Alexander Blackman had recently been released from prison following a successful legal challenge to his murder conviction. The article was accompanied by a sidebar, headlined “Ordeal that put his life on hold for three years”. The sidebar was a chronology of Sgt Blackman’s legal case. The first entry in the chronology stated that on 15 September 2011, “Sergeant Alexander Blackman shoots dead a fatally injured Taliban fighter”. It went on to explain that following a campaign by Sgt Blackman’s wife, and backed by the newspaper, his conviction had been reduced from murder to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility.
complainant said it was inaccurate to state that the Taliban fighter was
“fatally injured”, as it has not been proven that the Taliban fighter could not
have survived. The complainant accepted that the fighter was seriously wounded,
and may have died from his injuries, however he did not accept that his
injuries could be classified as fatal, as video and audio clips show that the
man’s eyes were open, that he was making “sounds of discomfort” and was able to
move his head.
newspaper said that during Sgt Blackman’s appeal, the court did not make a
finding on whether or not the insurgent would have survived his injuries. The newspaper said that the defence counsel’s
summary of a report by a pathologist who had studied the video footage, was
that “it was inevitable that the insurgent would have died within minutes
anyway. He had a sucking chest wound and a lung hanging out, and he was in
agony. He was miles away and hours away from skilled medical treatment”. The
newspaper said that the wounded insurgent was in extreme heat with no prospect
of medical attention, and it was therefore beyond doubt that he would have
5. The newspaper did not accept that it had breached the Code but offered to amend the online version of the article, changing the word “fatally” to “seriously” as a gesture of goodwill. The complainant declined this offer.
6. 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
7. During the appeal, the court had not made a finding that the insurgent was “fatally injured.” However the court had not been asked to decide this point as part of its deliberation on Sgt Blackman’s appeal of his conviction on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The insurgent’s injuries were life threatening, and one pathologist had noted that they were “probably fatal”, and that death was “highly likely”, given all the circumstances surrounding his injuries. The article did not suggest that the court had found the insurgent’s injuries were “fatal.” Given the evidence on the extent of his injuries, it was not inaccurate for the newspaper to characterise the insurgent as “fatally injured” in this context. There was no breach of Clause 1.
8. The complaint was not upheld
Remedial action required
Date complaint received: 09/05/2017
Date decision issued: 02/08/2017
Back to ruling listing