Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09039-21 Sadler v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. David
Sadler complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail
Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “DOZENS of migrants on an
over-loaded dinghy are caught on video streaming into Kent as a record 482
cross the channel in one day - bringing the total to 10,222 this year”,
published on 5 August 2021.
2. The
online article reported on the Channel migrant crisis. The article contained a
short video clip showing the “moment an 'overloaded' dinghy rammed with
migrants landed in Kent before the group of men, women and children posed for
selfies on the beach on a day where a record 482 people crossed the Channel
illegally.” It also reported the comments made by the MP for Dover and Deal,
who said there had “been more than 10,000 illegal crossing” in 2021. The
article went on to describe the various, separate crossings that had occurred
on the day in question, reporting that a group of men “appeared to be from the
Middle East”.
3. The
complainant said the article was inaccurate and misleading, in breach of Clause
1 (Accuracy). He said that it was not illegal to cross the channel in the
manner reported in order to claim asylum. There was no evidence of the asylum
status of the people referred to in the article, and so it was inaccurate to
say that they had crossed the channel “illegally”.
4. The
complainant also said the article breached Clause 12, as he considered that it
included irrelevant reference to the ethnicity of some of those completing the
journey across the English Channel.
5. The
publication did not accept that it had breached the Editors’ Code. It said that
the article did not determine, or seek to determine, the asylum status of the
individuals involved; there was no evidence of their asylum status and the
article made no comment on this. Rather, the article had described the manner
in which they had entered the UK as “illegal”. Though the publication accepted
that individuals may upon arrival to the UK be able to claim for asylum and as
a result would not be penalised for entering the country illegally, it argued
that the illegality of small boat crossing was beyond dispute. It said the
article was reflective of UK Legislation and mirrored the position of the Home
Office, noting that section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 stated that for a
non-British citizen to enter the UK without leave was an offence. In such
circumstances, and where it was accepted that the crossings were not authorised
by the UK Government or that the individuals using this method of entry to the
UK were not British citizens, the publication said the article was not
inaccurate or misleading to describe the method of entry as “illegal”.
6. The
publication added that the terms of Clause 12 were not engaged by the
complainant’s concerns. It said that this Clause related to prejudicial,
pejorative, and/or irrelevant references to an individual’s characteristic, and
did not apply to groups or categories of people.
7. While
the complainant acknowledged the legislation cited by the publication stated
that entry into the UK in the manner described in the article was illegal, he
noted that the publication had failed to recognise that no crime had been
committed if the migrant submitted to an asylum interview. Therefore, in order
for the publication to accurately describe the manner of entry into the UK as
“illegal”, it would need to know that the migrants would not submit to such an
interview. It could not possibly know this information.
8. The
Committee noted the terms of Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention:
REFUGEES
UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGEE
1.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal
entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where
their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are
present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.
and
section 31 of The Immigration and Asylum Act (1999) which states that:
Defences
based on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention.
(1)
It is a defence for a refugee charged with an offence to which this section
applies to show that, having come to the United Kingdom directly from a country
where his life or freedom was threatened (within the meaning of the Refugee
Convention), he […].— (b)showed good cause for his illegal entry or presence;
(2) If, in coming from the country where his life or freedom was threatened,
the refugee stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom, subsection (1)
applies only if he shows that he could not reasonably have expected to be given
protection under the Refugee Convention in that other country
9. The
publication said that these statutes supported its position: it was not
inaccurate to describe small boat crossings, where there was no official
authorisation for the occupants to enter the UK, as an “illegal” method of
entry into the UK. It noted that both statutes made reference to the “illegal
entry or presence” of migrants within the UK.
10. In
addition, the publication said that the UK Government had itself referred to
the method of entry in question as “illegal migration”. For example, recently
in the consultation into the reform of the Human Rights Act 1998: “Equally,
there are a number of other challenges to the government’s ability to tackle
illegal migration, particularly via small boats in the English Channel.”
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
11. The
Committee first made clear that people have a right to seek asylum in the UK,
and it is not illegal to do so. However, the question for the Committee was
whether the article was inaccurate or misleading to describe an irregular
method of entry, via small boats across the English Chanel, as “illegal”.
12. In
this case, it was the manner of entry into the UK which was described by the
publication as “illegal”, rather than the legal status of the migrants once in
UK territory. The newspaper had cited UK legislation to support its position
regarding the legality of these crossings: for a non-British citizen to enter
the UK without leave was an offence under the Immigration Act 1971. In
addition, the Committee noted that the United Nations Refugee Convention and
the Immigration and Asylum Act (1999) both use the term “illegal entry” when
describing irregular methods of entry of migrants seeking asylum, albeit these
provisions made clear that penalties would not apply in these cases. Taken in
this context, where entry into a country via irregular means had been described
as “illegal” by the UK Government and in British and international migration
law (notwithstanding a subsequent claim of asylum), the Committee did not find
that characterising unauthorised cross-channel entries to the UK as “illegal”
represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article or a
significant inaccuracy. Furthermore, given that the publication had been
describing specifically the legality of the means of entry to the UK, and not
the legal status of the entrants themselves once in UK territory, the absence
of further information regarding the prohibition on the government to penalise
asylum seekers for their method of entry did not render the article inaccurate
or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1.
13. The
Committee noted that the complainant had raised further concerns under Clause
12. In circumstances where these concerns related specifically to the
individuals photographed, the Committee considered that it would require the
direct involvement of these individuals – or their authorised representative –
in order to be in position to make a ruling on these points of complaint. The
complaint was not acting on their behalf and as such the Committee could not
consider these aspects of the complaint and therefore made no ruling on the
points raised.
Conclusion(s)
14. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
15. N/A
Date
complaint received: 5/08/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 29/04/2022
Back to ruling listing