Resolution Statement 09570-19 Enticknap v
thenorthernecho.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Gary Enticknap complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that thenorthernecho.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Teesside pimp handed
suspended jail term”, published on 11 June 2019.
2. The article reported on the sentencing of the
complainant. The article stated that the complainant had “blackmailed a woman
who worked for his online escort agency”; detailed his sentencing for
controlling prostitution for gain and contained a quote from a spokesperson for
North Yorkshire Police which stated that “he used the threat of blackmail to
avoid being brought to justice.”
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1 because, whilst the claim he had blackmailed one of the
escorts had been addressed in court, this had been dropped and he had not been
found guilty of it.
4. The publication accepted that it had published inaccurate
information. The article had been based on a press release issued by the North
Yorkshire Police which had incorrectly stated that the complainant had
blackmailed one of the women. The publication was contacted by the complainant
directly, and after confirming with the North Yorkshire Police, it amended the
article and added the following correction and apology as a footnote:
An earlier version of this article made reference to an
allegation of blackmail as per information supplied by North Yorkshire Police,
but that charge was dropped by the CPS. The information was used in good faith
by The Northern Echo and we would like to apologise for any distress caused.
After the article was amended, the North Yorkshire Police
released a second press release which stated that the complainant had not been
found guilty of blackmail.
Relevant Clause Provisions
5. 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
6. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
7. The publication offered to write a letter of apology to
the complainant.
8. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to his satisfaction.
9. 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: 18/12/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/01/2020