Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 08138-19/08755-19 Allison/North Ayrshire Council
v Irvine Times
Summary
of Complaint
1. Gail
Allison, represented by the North Ayrshire Council, complained to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Irvine Times breached Clause
1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Man’s
life ‘ruined’ after NAC staff accused him of stalking”, published on 15 October
2019.
2. The
article was a first-person account by a man who had faced charges under
sections 38 and 39 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010
and who “claim[ed] his life has been ruined after North Ayrshire Council
employees accused him of stalking”. It focussed on this man’s feelings after
being accused of stalking, and what had happened in his personal life. The
article detailed that the man “spent three weeks in prison… after being accused
of stalking two former colleagues”, and included a quote from him in which he
stated that he had lost everything because of “this” and had “spent three weeks
on remand in prison” as well as losing his home, car and being sacked from his
job at the Council. The article reported that “a Sheriff dramatically threw out
all the stalking charges” and that he had then been “found guilty of a much
lesser breach of the peace charge” after “posting an offensive message… on his
social media page” about one of the women who had accused him of stalking. It
included several quotations from the man about his experience, including him
saying that he felt that he was “the one who was victimised here” and that,
after all but one of the charges against him were dropped, that those who made
the allegations against him should face “justice”. The article also detailed
the penalties the man faced as a result of the accusations: he was “fined £100
and ordered to pay the woman £500 compensation for the offensive Facebook post
and ordered not to contact her”.
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format headlined “Man’s
life ‘ruined’ after council staff accused him of stalking”, published on 18
October 2019.
4. The
complainant was one of the women who the man was accused of stalking. During
IPSO’s investigation, she was represented by her employer, North Ayrshire
Council. She said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She
said that the man had gone to prison because he had breached his bail
conditions; the breach of bail was a separate matter to the stalking charges.
She said that the article was misleading as it implied a causal link between
the stalking charges and the man’s time in prison. She also said it was misleading to report
that all the stalking charges against him had been thrown out as the charge he
was convicted of related to conduct that the complainant considered to be
stalking and harassment. The complainant also said it was misleading to
characterise the section 38 breach of the peace charge for which the man was
found guilty as a “much lesser” charge than the section 39 charge of stalking
he had been accused of. She said that the conviction was still very serious,
and the social media activity which was the basis for the conviction involved
serious threats. The complainant also stated that he had been charged with
repeated offences, but was eventually found guilty in respect of one single
occasion.
5. The
complainant also said that the man had not been sacked by the council, but had
resigned, and that his job title was reported inaccurately. However, she did
not say what his job title was. She also disputed that he had been victimised
and that nothing had happened to his accusers. She also said that the article
was unbalanced, as it portrayed the man as having his life ruined without
demonstrating the seriousness of his offences. Finally, she said that the
article was misleading as it did not include the fact that the man was also now
banned by the court from entering Council premises for 3 years and was required
to attend a number of programs.
6. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the article was
not a detailed law report of the court case, but the man’s first-hand account
of his experience. It said that the man was entitled to talk about his
experiences, and the article was clearly presented as his account, rather than
as a court report. Whilst the complainant may disagree with the man’s views,
that did not mean they could not be published or that the article was
inaccurate. It also said that the complainant was wrong to suggest there was
not a connection between the man’s time in prison and the stalking allegations
as if he had not been charged with stalking, he would not have had bail imposed
upon him which he then went on to breach. The publication said that it was not
misleading to report that all stalking charges had been thrown out where he had
originally been charged with nine incidents under section 39 but was only
convicted of one offence under section 38 (breach of the peace). Furthermore,
the publication also said it was not misleading to describe the section 38
charge as being “much lesser” than the section 39 charge and noted that the
man’s own solicitor had said that he had been convicted on “a much reduced
charge”. It said the seriousness of a section 39 or section 38 charge would depend
on the conduct, however the maximum penalty for a section 38 charge was five
years in prison on indictment or a year on remand. As the man received a fine and all the
charges under section 39 were dropped, the publication said that this was
further evidence that the court convicted him of a less serious charge.
7. The
publication said that it was not misleading to report that the man had been
sacked. Prior to publication it had contacted the Council, who had sent an
email asking if the main issue was “That we were wrong to sack him?” The
publication did not consider any inaccuracy in the reporting of the man’s job
title to be significant to the overall article. However, it did offer to
correct both the man’s job title and the reason for dismissal if the complainant
was able to provide the material showing the correct position. It said that the
article had also included several of the penalties the man was subject to and
that other penalties, including the requirement that he attend a number of
programs, were sanctions from the breach of bail, rather than the section 38
conviction; the article made clear that it was referring to penalties imposed
“for the Facebook post”. It said that the only detail it had not included from
the section 38 conviction was that his restraining order also applied to
council properties, but this was not significantly misleading as to the overall
article. Finally, the publication said that it had put the man’s comments on
his experience to the Council prior to publication, including his view that he
spent 3 weeks in prison “over the charges which were thrown out” and the
Council had declined to provide any comment or rebuttal.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
9. The
article was a subjective first-hand account of the man’s experience of the
criminal justice system, which the newspaper was entitled to publish, provided
it took care to avoid inaccuracy in line with its obligations under the terms
of Clause 1. Notwithstanding this, the Committee acknowledged that the article
had caused the complainant distress, and reported on matters which were also
deeply personal to her.
10. The
Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that the article had not specified
that the man had gone to prison for three weeks because he had breached his
bail conditions, rather than being sentenced to prison as a result of the
allegations of stalking. However, the article did not report that the time
spent in prison was directly as a result of the allegations. It set out the
man’s account of what had happened after the allegations against him had been
made and included a quote from him in which he said that he had been on remand
in prison “because of this”. The article accurately reported the offences for
which the man had been convicted and the penalties he had received for those
offences. Where the time the man spent in prison was part of a chain of events
which followed the allegations being made, it was not misleading to report that
he had spent three weeks in prison after the allegations against him had been
made, or to include a quote from the man in which he expressed the view that
his imprisonment had occurred “because of this”. On this basis there was no
failure to take care under Clause 1(i) on this point, and no significant
inaccuracy as to require correction under Clause (ii).
11. The
charge the man faced under section 39 of the 2010 Act (Offence of stalking)
involved 9 incidents and the charge he faced under section 38 (Threatening or
abusive behaviour) involved one incident. It was not in dispute that the man
was convicted under section 38 and not under section 39. Where he had been
convicted of an offence only under section 38, it was not inaccurate for the
article to report that the stalking charges against him had been thrown out.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point. The article had also referred to
the complainant as being convicted of a “much lesser” breach of the peace
charge after all the stalking charges had been thrown out by the Sheriff. In
circumstances where the man was acquitted of the charge under section 39 which
involved multiple incidents and was convicted under section 38 in relation to a
single incident, it was not significantly misleading to report that the man had
been convicted of a “much lesser” breach of the peace charge. There was no
failure to take care on this point, and no breach of Clause 1.
12. The
complainant had said that the man had not been fired from his job, but that he
had resigned. The publication had relied on an email sent by a council employee
which had suggested that they had ended the man's employment. On this basis
there was no failure to take care under Clause 1(i), and the complainant had
not provided any evidence to suggest that the information contained in the
email was inaccurate. In addition, the complainant had said that the man’s job
title had been reported inaccurately, but without indicating his correct
title. As it was not in dispute that the
man had previously been employed by the Council, and without evidence of the
man’s job title, the Committee did not find a breach of Clause 1 on this point.
The publication had offered to publish a clarification on each of these points
if it was demonstrated that they were inaccurate, which the Committee welcomed.
13. The
complainant had said that the article had made the man out to be the victim and
lacked balance. Under the Editors’ Code, articles do not need to be balanced,
as long as publications take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or
distorted information. Therefore there was no breach of Clause 1 on these
points.
14.
Finally, the article had reported that the man was fined £100 and ordered to
pay the woman £500 compensation for the offensive Facebook post and ordered not
to contact her. The article made clear that these penalties related to the
offensive Facebook post only, and where the article had also reported that he
was subject to restrictions which precluded the man from contacting the
complainant, it was not significantly misleading to omit to report that the
restraining order to which the man was subject also covered council properties.
On this basis, there was no failure to take care under Clause 1(i) and no
significant inaccuracy requiring correction under Clause 1(ii).
Conclusions
15. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
15. N/A
Date
complaint received: 11/11/19
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/10/20
Back to ruling listing