Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09740-21 Woodcock v thesun.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Simon
Woodcock complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, through a
representative, that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “BOOZE BINGE Girl, 16, ‘passes out’
after nightclub sells her 10 Jagerbombs for £7.50 which she downed in one
hour”, published on 31 July 2021.
2. The
online article reported that a “16-year-old girl was found passed out after a
nightclub sold her 10 Jagerbombs for just £7.50 in a single hour”, with the
teen “later found by her mother in the doorway of a bingo hall.” The article
included the comments made by the mother to a separate publication, 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 the response
from the complainant, the club’s manager, who made clear that the venue was
“deeply concerned about this story and [was] investigating matters fully”,
adding that they would “cooperate fully” with the police and offer a review of
the CCTV to establish what occurred. It also said that the club did “not
encourage excessive drinking”, staff were “trained to serve responsibly” and it
had “stringent ID policies in place” with only official documentation accepted.
3. 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.
4. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. The newspaper
explained its position regarding syndication: the disputed claims originated
from an article published by a local newspaper and then shared by its
publishing group with other publications, and reported in good faith. Upon
receipt of the complaint, the publication had contacted the local newspaper to
ascertain its position in relation to the concerns raised by the complainant.
In response, the newspaper had confirmed that it had been unable to contact the
family member or verify the claims made and therefore was taking corrective
action. Once the publication was notified of this, it removed the online article
and confirmed to the complainant that it would not republish the allegations
made. It also proposed to publish the following statement in its online
Corrections and Clarifications column:
“Following
publication of a July 31 article, now taken down ("Girl, 16, ‘passes out’
after nightclub sells her 10 Jagerbombs for £7.50 which she downed in one
hour"), the owner of The Acapulco Club in Halifax says there is no record
of the individual entering the club either on its ticketing system or on CCTV.
Nor has West Yorkshire Police found any evidence to support the allegations
made.”
5. The
complainant, however, did not consider that the steps taken by the newspaper
were 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
6. The
publication had relied upon information which had been syndicated by a trusted
newspaper group. While there was no reason to doubt that the newspaper had
acted in good faith, it was ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the
content published including the presentation of the claims made.
7. In
this case, the allegations made by the mother against the complainant’s
establishment 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 Committee recognised the complainant’s concerns, it was not in a
position to reconcile the conflicting accounts, or to rule on the accuracy of
the claims made by the mother. Its role was to consider the presentation of the
claims made.
8. The
Committee noted that the headline and first few paragraphs of the article
stated, as fact, that the child was sold a specific amount of alcohol by the
complainant’s establishment without qualification or attribution. Although the
headline included quotation marks within the headline these appeared only
around the words “passes out” and not in relation to the venue’s sale of
alcohol. The headline contained the sole reference to the specific allegation
that the nightclub had sold her alcohol and nowhere in the body of the article
was it indicated that it was an allegation made by the person’s mother. By
presenting serious allegations about the conduct of a licensed establishment,
the publication had not taken sufficient care over the accuracy of the article
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).
9. The
Committee welcomed the steps taken by the publication in response to the
complaint: promptly removing the online article and offering to publish an item
which updated readers on the situation. However, the offered wording did not
address how the article had misleadingly presented the claims made. For this
reason, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).
Conclusion(s)
10. The
complaint was upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
11.
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.
12. 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 offer to publish a standalone item in its online
Corrections and Clarification Column. However, the proposed 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.
13. The
Committee then considered the placement of this clarification. This
clarification should appear as a standalone clarification in the online
Corrections and Clarification’s column. 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