Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09738-21 Woodcock v Huddersfield Daily Examiner
Summary
of Complaint
1. Simon
Woodcock complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, through a
representative, that the Huddersfield Daily Examiner breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Girl, 16,
'passes out' in doorway after club sells her ten 75p Jagerbombs”, published on
31 July 2021.
2. The
article reported that a mother had criticised a named nightclub after it had
permitted entry to and served alcohol to her underage daughter. It said that
the mother found her “teenage daughter ‘passed out in the doorway’ of a nearby
bingo hall after she spent just £7.50 on ten drinks in the space of an hour” at
the club, noting that her daughter went to the “nightclub on July 19 with a
group of friends, but became unwell after drinking too much”. The article included the comments made by the
mother, who called on the nightclub to review its entry and drinks policy as
well as the local authority to take preventative action. The article also
included a response from the complainant, the club’s manager, who made clear
that the venue was “deeply concerned about this story”, did “not encourage
excessive drinking” and that its staff were “trained to serve
responsibly”. It made clear that the
club would “investigate the incident and work with police and the council to
address ID issues”. The article also
included comments made by a local councillor, responsible for public services
and communities, who said that the council would “work closely with the police
to ensure compliance with licensing legislation and will follow up on any
reports of under-age drinking”, adding that “if concerns are raised”, the
council would “respond and take enforcement action if necessary”.
3. A
substantially similar version of the article also appeared online with the
headline “Girl, 16, 'passes out' in random doorway after Halifax nightclub
sells her ten 75p Jagerbombs”.
4. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1
(Accuracy). He said that the reported
incident had never occurred; there was no evidence that the underage girl had
entered the venue or been sold alcohol. He also denied that the family member
quoted existed. He said that the article’s publication had been seriously
damaging to the reputation and finances of the business.
5. The
newspaper said that the article had been based upon a press release. Upon
receipt of this, it had contacted the following subjects for comment: the
family member; the complainant (as the manager of the venue); the local
council; and the police. It maintained that the article accurately reported the
allegations made by the family member, adding that the article made clear the
status of these allegations. It also noted that the article made clear the
venue’s position, and published the complainant’s comments in full as well as
the response provided by the local council.
6. Notwithstanding
this, following the article’s publication, and upon receipt of further concerns
raised by the complainant after his review of the venue’s CCTV footage, the
publication returned to the family member for further comments and in order to
obtain a police reference number. When the family member did not respond to
this request, the newspaper contacted the police for a public statement,
removed the online article and published the following correction online. This
included the statement provided by the police and the complainant’s denial in
full, and appeared as a standalone item on the newspaper’s website:
“In
regards to our story 'Girl, 16, 'passes out' in random doorway after Halifax
nightclub sells her ten 75p Jagerbombs,' 29 July, the owner of The Acapulco
Club, Simon Woodcock, has since advised that he is satisfied that there was no
record of the individual entering the club via their QR/ticketing system, and
that there was no-one on the CCTV matching the individual's description.
Furthermore, Mr Woodcock has advised that no footage of the individual was
found on the CCTV of the location where she was suggested to have been found.
YorkshireLive contacted the Police for comment, who stated that 'West Yorkshire
Police has not found any evidence to support the allegations made.' We are happy to make the above positions
clear.”
7. The
complainant, however, did not consider the actions taken by the publication
sufficient. The wording did not state unequivocally that the events described
did not happen, nor did it adequately address the financial consequences of the
article’s publication or include an apology.
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
8. The
newspaper had relied on claims which had been made by the mother, and shared
within a press release, against the complainant’s establishment. These
allegations were serious, claiming that it had sold alcohol to a person under
the age of 18, potentially in breach of
the law and licensing regulations. While the newspaper acknowledged that it had
subsequently been unable to obtain further testimony from the mother following
a further enquiry with the police, it considered that the article had not breached
the Editors’ Code because it had taken care to present the claims made by the
mother only as allegations, with the text of the article making clear the
respective positions of the relevant parties: the complainant’s business had
launched its own investigation into the allegations and the council would
“follow up” on any reported incidents of under-age drinking.
9. In
the case, the Committee was not in a position to reconcile the conflicting
accounts, or to rule on the accuracy of the claims made by the mother. However,
the Committee considered that the article had misleadingly presented, and
adopted, these allegations as fact.
10. The
Committee considered that the headline – read on its own or in conjunction with
the text of the article – did not make sufficiently clear that the article was
reporting a claim which had been made by the mother. The headline and text of
the article stated, as fact, that the child was permitted entry to and then
sold a specific amount of alcohol by the complainant’s establishment, without
qualification or attribution. The inclusion of quotation marks within the
headline, only around the words “passes out”, and the responses of the relevant
parties, did not adequately indicate that the article was reporting a claim
when the article was considered as a whole. By presenting serious allegations
about the conduct of a licensed establishment in this way, the publication had
not taken sufficient care over the accuracy of the article – both in print and
online – in breach of Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (iv). The presentation of these
claims as fact was significant, where they related to serious allegations that
alcohol had been sold to someone under the age of 18. For this reason, the
newspaper was required to publish a clarification under the terms of Clause 1
(ii).
11.
While the Committee welcomed the steps taken by the publication when it was
unable to obtain further testimony from the mother, the published wording did
not address that the article had misleadingly presented the claims made. For
this reason, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).
Conclusion(s)
12. The
complaint was upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
13.
Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, the Committee considered what remedial
action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a
breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction
and/or adjudication, the terms and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
14. In
coming to a view on the appropriate remedy in this case, the Committee
considered the seriousness and extent of the breach of the Code. It also noted
the steps taken by the newspaper following publication, including the removal
of the online article and the publication of standalone correction. However,
this item had not addressed that the article had misleadingly presented the
allegations as fact. As such, the appropriate remedy was the publication of a
clarification.
15. The
Committee then considered the placement of this clarification. This
clarification should appear as a standalone clarification in the publication’s
Corrections and Clarification’s column both in print and online. The wording of
this clarification should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear
that it had been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press
Standards Organisation.
Date
complaint received: 07/09/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/07/2022
Back to ruling listing