Resolution
Statement – 07965-19 Rainey and Ewart v Sunday World
Summary
of Complaint
1. Edward
Rainey and Edward Ewart complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that Sunday World breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “'GET OUT OR BE BURNT OUT'”, published
on 29 September 2019.
2. The
article reported on tensions between the LVF and UVF, and stated that the chief
of the LVF and his family had been “approached by the rival UVF and ordered
out” by a man the article described as a “UVF drug boss”, “himself a heavy drug
user” and “crime chief”. The article said the man and his “sidekick”, who was
nicknamed “bully boy”, controlled the heroin drug market, “flooded south
Belfast with cocaine and heroine” and that the first man was regarded as one of
the city’s main drug dealers”. The article said that the man had “also
orchestrated a series of race attacks”.
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the
headline “headline”.
4. The
first complainant, the man described as a “drug boss”, said that the article
was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said that he denied membership of the
UVF and noted that he had never been convicted of membership. He also denied
that he was a “drugs boss” or that he was a drug user, and denied that he
supplied heroin. The complainant said that stating he had “orchestrated race
attacks” was inaccurate and also gave the misleading impression that he was
racist. He also denied that he had a dispute with any family, as described in
the article. The complainant said that these claims had been stated as fact,
and not as allegations.
5. The
second complainant, the man described as the first complainant’s “sidekick”,
also said the article breached Clause 1. He said it was inaccurate to say he
controlled the drug market, or was a supplier of heroin, and noted that he had
never been convicted of any drug related offence and that he denied any
criminal activity. He also stated he had not orchestrated race attacks, and
denied any insinuation he was racist. The second complainant also said he was
not involved with any dispute with any family, and rejected the nickname “bully
boy” as a malicious slur.
6. The
complainants also noted that the publication had not attempted to contact them
in order to put the allegations to them.
The complainants objected to the assertion they could not be contacted
due to their standing. They stated that the Editors Code was to be applied to
all persons equally and asserted that there was no provision that permitted displaying
the requirements under the code based on the background of any individual. The
complainant was also concerned that the use of anonymous sources was not
sufficient to demonstrate that care had been taken with regards to the article.
7. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the complainants
were longstanding members of the UVF and that they had featured in multiple
articles by the publication which had outlined criminal actions to which the
complainants had never complained about before. It said the first complainant
had been photographed at an event in 2015 as a UVF representative. It said that
the first complainant was a drug user. It said that South Belfast UVF had
orchestrated a race hate campaign, and therefore it was not inaccurate to
report that the first complainant had orchestrated racist attacks. The
publication also said it was not misleading to characterise the second
complainant as a “Bully boy”. It said that it was unable to reach out to the
complainants for comment due to their standing and that they were difficult to
reach.
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.
Mediated
Outcome
9. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
10. During
IPSO’s investigation the publication and complainants agreed to resolve the
complaint if a confidential meeting took place between them to discuss the
issues arising from the story, with an IPSO representative present.
11. The
meeting took place. Both parties agreed that the Editors Code applied to all
persons equally and the publication made a commitment to ensure, in so far as
is reasonable in line with the Code, that if there were to be any future
allegations printed against the complainants that they would be offered the
opportunity to comment via their chosen representative.
12. The
complainants said that the holding of the confidential meeting would resolve
the matter to their satisfaction. The meeting nevertheless further lead to an
agreed resolution to the issues being discussed.
13. As
the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make
a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 11/10/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/12/2019
Back to ruling listing