Decision of the Complaints Committee 08064-18 Gordon v
Sunday World
Summary of Complaint
1. John Gordon complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Sunday World breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2
(Privacy) of the Editors ‘Code of Practice in an article headlined “HUMILIATED
& TERRIFIED” published on 23 December 2018.
2. The article reported on an attack against members of a
security firm as they attempted to evict tenants from a farm in the Republic of
Ireland. It said that a gang ambushed the men, and the owner of the firm –
named as Ian Gordon – had a gun put to his head, as the gang shot his Alsatian
security dog. The article said that when a reporter went to Mr Gordon’s house –
the driveway of which it described as being “filled with expensive 4x4 vehicles
and work vans” – his wife said that her husband would not be coming to the door
as “he doesn’t want to talk about it”. The article reported the general
geographic area of the complainant’s home. The article then went on to give
details of Mr Gordon’s security firm, saying that it carried out work quoted as
being work which “nobody else will touch”, including removing material from two
unnamed controversial bonfire sites in East Belfast the previous July.
3. The complainant, the man named in the article as Ian
Gordon, said that the article contained several inaccuracies. He said that he
had not carried out the clearing of bonfire sites in East Belfast, and this was
a damaging and contentious claim. During the course of the complaint, the
complainant provided two letters from Belfast City Council. The first said that
no contract was issued to the complainant’s company to clear bonfire material
at a named location in Belfast last July. The second letter said that the
complainant’s company had not undertaken any work for Belfast City Council
within the last three years.
4. The complainant also said that it was inaccurate to
report that his dog was an Alsatian, and was shot. He said that the dog was not
an Alsatian, and was in fact badly beaten and had to be put down. He said that
he could provide an autopsy report from the vet to show this. He said that it
was not true that his wife had told the reporter that “he doesn’t want to talk
about it”. Instead, he said that she told the reporter “We don’t want to talk
to you, please leave”. He also said that it was inaccurate to report
neighbours’ claims that he was in “a state of shock” – he had not spoken to any
neighbours and he disputed that they would have had any knowledge of his
wellbeing. He also said that it was misleading to state that his driveway was
“filled with expensive 4x4 vehicles” as some of these belonged to family and
workmen.
5. The complainant said that including reporting the general
location of his home intruded into his privacy in breach of Clause 2 (Privacy),
and added to the threat against him and his family.
6. The publication did not accept that it was significantly
misleading to refer to the dog which died as an Alsatian – it said that from
the photograph published in the article, the dog looked like an Alsatian, and
in any event, the breed was not relevant to the overall story. The publication
said that it spoke to three sources who said that the dog had been shot – it was
not in dispute that the dog died as result of a brutal attack. However, it
accepted that it did not have access to any vet records or an autopsy report,
and so was willing to put the complainant’s position on the record on this
point. It proposed a correction which read:
“We published an article on 23 December 2018 headlined
“HUMILIATED & TERRIFIED” which reported on the recent attack on [name] and
Ian Gordon. Our article stated that Mr Gordon’s dog had been shot during the
attack – we have now been informed by Mr Gordon that, in fact, his dog was
badly beaten and sadly had to be put down following the attack. We apologise to
Mr Gordon for any confusion.”
7. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to
state that the complainant had been involved in clearing bonfire sites in East
Belfast the previous July. It said that this information had been provided by a
number of reliable and well-informed sources – although it had an obligation to
protect these confidential sources, it said that one was from the political
sphere, and the other was a former colleague of the complainant. It said that
the information included in the first letter provided by the complainant was
meaningless as the article did not make any claim as to the complainant’s
involvement at the site named in this letter, furthermore, it was possible that
the council did not issue formal contracts at all for the bonfire clearing. In
response to the second letter, the publication said that it was willing to put
the complainant’s position on record. Within 2 weeks of being provided with
this letter, it amended its previous offer of correction to read as follows:
“We published an article on 23 December 2018 headlined
“HUMILIATED & TERRIFIED” which reported on the recent attack on [name] and
Ian Gordon. Our article stated that Mr Gordon’s dog had been shot during the
attack – we have now been informed by Mr Gordon that, in fact, his dog was
badly beaten and sadly had to be put down following the attack. The article
also stated that Mr Gordon had been involved in clearing bonfire sites in East
Belfast – we now understand from Belfast City Council that G.S Agencies were
not involved in clearing bonfire sites or were contracted by the Council to
carry out any work on its behalf within the last 3 years. We are happy to make
this clear and apologise to G.S. Agencies for any distress caused”.
The publication recognised the need for due prominence, and
offered to print the wording between pages 6-10. It said that pages 1-10 were
the most read pages of the publication. It said that the reason for the delay
in offering the second correction was due to the dispute over the accuracy of
the sources in relation to the bonfire clearing. Once it had the letter from
Belfast City Council, it said that it promptly offered to put the complainant’s
position on record and amended its offered wording accordingly.
8. These offers of correction were declined, and the
complainant indicated during the course of the complaint that he did not want
his name or details of his complaint republished in a correction. He said that
the apology which was offered was not expressed strongly enough as the
allegation that he was involved in bonfire clearing led to increased threats
against him and caused damage to his personal and professional reputation.
9. The publication did not accept that the article had
inaccurately reported the complainant’s wife’s comment. In addition, it noted
that the article did not state that Mr Gordon had discussed the attack with his
neighbours, but said that it was not in dispute that the journalist had talked
to his neighbours, and the article was entitled to report their comments.
Similarly, the publication said that it was not in dispute that there had been
many large cars in the complainant’s driveway – the article did not make any
claim as to who owned the cars.
10. The publication did not accept that the article intruded
on the complainant’s privacy. It said that it referenced the complainant’s home
in general terms and took care not to publish any images of his home, or
identify anyone unconnected to the events.
Relevant Code Provisions
11. 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.
v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the
outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an
agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable
expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public
disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained
about is already in the public domain or will become so.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
Findings of the Committee
12. The publication said that it had relied on two sources
when reporting the claim that the complainant had been involved in clearing
bonfire material in East Belfast the previous July. The Committee noted that
the publication believed that these would have had first-hand knowledge of
these specific claims, and the publication was entitled to report these source’s
claims. However, the article had
presented these claims as points of fact, rather than claims, and in
such circumstances there was a requirement to corroborate the information
provided by the confidential sources. The publication had not taken any steps
to corroborate these claims, and so there was a failure to take care over the
accuracy of the article and a breach of Clause 1(i). Where the claims related
to contentious and high profile activities allegedly carried out by the
complainant and his business, and where the complainant was able to provide a
letter from Belfast City Council which confirmed that his company had not
undertaken any work on its behalf within the last three years, reporting the
claims as fact represented a significant inaccuracy and a correction was
required in order to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii).
13. The article had reported that the complainant’s dog had
been shot; the complainant said that the dog’s autopsy report showed that it
had to be put down after being badly beaten. The publication said that the
claim was provided by sources, however the claim was reported as a point of
fact, and so there was a requirement to corroborate this information. The
publication did not obtain any corroboration in relation to these claims, and
the Committee considered that reporting that the dog had been shot was a
significant escalation of the violence used against the dog, and by extension,
in the wider attack against the complainant and his employees. As such, there
was a failure to take care over the accuracy of the claim, and a breach of
1(ii), and where the inaccuracy was significant, a requirement to correct under
the terms of Clause 1(ii).
14. The Committee then considered whether the correction
which was offered satisfied the obligations required under Clause 1(ii). The
correction which was offered identified the article’s original claim in regards
to both the complainant’s involvement in the bonfire clearing, and the
circumstances of the attack on his dog. It also clearly set out the
complainant’s position on the matter following receipt of a copy of the letter
from Belfast City Council, and the findings of the dog’s autopsy. It also
apologised to the complainant for the distress caused. The article had appeared
on page 6, and so the correction must be published on page 6 as offered by the
publication, or further forward. Finally, the Committee considered whether the
correction was sufficiently prompt. The correction was offered within two weeks
of receipt of a copy of the letter from Belfast City Council, however where the
complainant had previously indicated that he was reluctant to have a correction
published which named him and referenced the attack, the Committee considered
that in these circumstances, 2 weeks was sufficiently prompt whilst it was
established whether the complainant was willing to accept an alternative
resolution to his complaint. In regard to the apology which was offered, Clause
1(ii) says that it should be published “where appropriate”. The correction
apologised for any distress caused in general terms, which was appropriate, and
there was no requirement under the Code for this to encompass all of the points
which may have caused the complainant concern. For all of these reasons, there
was no breach of Clause 1(ii).
15. The Committee
considered the significance of the remaining alleged inaccuracies. The
Committee did not consider any inaccuracy regarding the breed of the dog to be
significant to the overall story as to require correction and noted that
article included a photograph of the dog. Similarly, any discrepancy between the
complainant’s wife’s account of what she told the reporter and what was
printed, did not give any significantly misleading impression as to her
comments – the report of her comments accurately conveyed that the complainant did not want to speak to
the reporter. The Committee noted that a publication can report comments made
by a third party with which a person may disagree, as long as these are
presented accurately, and attributed to the persons who made them. In this
case, the comments had been attributed to the complainant’s neighbours and no
complaint had been received challenging their accuracy. Finally, the article
did not make any claim as to the ownership of the vehicles outside the
complainant’s house; it was not in dispute that the cars were parked there as
described. For all of these reasons, these points did not represent significant
inaccuracies which would require correction, and there was no breach of Clause
1 on these points.
16. The article
reported the general location of the complainant’s house and did not disclose
its full address, or include details such as a house name or number. Reporting
the home’s general location did not reveal anything private about the
complainant. Similarly, revealing the existence of or describing the vehicles
which were situated in the complainant’s driveway did not reveal anything
private about him; it simply reported what was visible to any passer-by. For
this reason, there was no breach of Clause 2.
Conclusions
17. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial action required
18. The correction which was offered was clearly put the
correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence,
and should now be published.
Date complaint received: 04/04/2019
Date decision issued: 08/10/2019