Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 09771-19 Reynolds v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Patrick Reynolds complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
that the Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) in two articles headlined
“Jeremy Corbyn, the bomb-maker's friend: IRA terrorist gloried in the Hyde Park
bombing - yet after he left jail, admirer Corbyn helped create a council job
for him and he jumped a 12,000-strong queue for genteel Islington council
flat”, published on the 3 December 2019 and “Why DID Jeremy Corbyn share
offices with a convicted IRA bomb maker... who was embroiled in a £550k
scandal? Bill Akass and Richard Pendlebury investigate?”, published on 4
December 2019.
2.
The first article set out associations in the 1980s between Jeremy Corbyn MP
and a man who had been convicted of conspiring to cause explosions. The article
began by introducing the man and examining how he came to live in Islington.
The headline said that “admirer Corbyn helped create a council job for [the
man]”. The article went on to focus on this job which was at an organisation
called the Irish in Islington Project. The article reported that the Irish in
Islington Project was founded in 1983 and described it as one of a number of
pressure groups “under the umbrella of Corbyn’s IBRG [Irish in Britain
Representation Group]”. It reported that the IBRG was a pro-republican group
which supported Mr Corbyn in his campaign to become the MP for Islington North.
3.
The article reported that “inevitably” the Irish in Islington Project applied
to Islington Council for funding to pay for full time staff and headquarters.
It reported that Mr Corbyn sought “successfully” to find funding for the
project elsewhere, and referred to a letter sent to Ethnic Minorities Unit at
the Greater London Council (GLC) in which Mr Corbyn said: “The work of the
Irish in Islington Project is both necessary and desirable, and I urge that
their application for two project workers be met”. The article then said “You
might already be able to guess who was to be given one of these posts”, as
shortly after the man was released from prison, he took up the position of
“community outreach worker” at the Irish in Islington Project. It said that
“thanks to Corbyn and friends, [named man’s] future was secure”. The article
reported that Mr Corbyn had not responded to a request for comment on the
claims, however it reported that the man had said “I knew Jeremy back in the
Eighties and Nineties. He was my MP when I was living in England”.
4.
The second article expanded upon the man’s job at the Irish in Islington
Project whilst repeating several points which had been made in the first
article. It also included a bullet point under the headline which reported that
Jeremy Corbyn had “recommended [a named] jailed IRA terrorist as [the Irish in
Islington Project’s] outreach head”. The article said that the same named man
received “assistance” from “Labour’s current leadership”. It also said that the
man enjoyed “what could be described as a charmed life – thanks in part at
least to his friends John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn”, that the two positions
at the Irish in Islington Project were “promoted” by Mr Corbyn and Mr
McDonnell, and that the man was “handed not one but two taxpayer-funded jobs
close to his tax-payer funded home in London”. The article reported that John
McDonnell MP wrote to the GLC in 1984 to say “I understand that the Irish in
Islington Project will shortly be submitting an application for capital funds
to establish an Irish Centre. I would like to lend my support to the Project
and could you keep me informed of its progress”. It described the Irish in Islington Project
as a “subsidiary” of the IBRG.
5.
The article also said that “Archive records examined by the Mail show [man] and
[other man] set up an office in a community centre in the heart of Corbyn’s
constituency in Archway, North London. Corbyn himself used the same address for
his monthly constituency surgeries”. The article repeated a point made in the
first article that 13 days after the Brighton bombings in 1984, Mr Corbyn
hosted the man and others at the House of Commons. It went on to report that
the following day, the GLC approved a grant to the Irish in Islington’s “sister
project” – the Irish in Greenwich Project. It reported that the man returned to
the House of Commons for a press conference organised by the IBRG. Finally, the
article reported that the man had since left London and moved back to Northern
Ireland, where he became a Sinn Fein councillor.
6.
The complainant worked at the Irish in Islington Project at the time the man
was employed in the 1980s. He said that the two articles contained a number of
inaccuracies, and that a representative from the Irish in Islington Project
should have been contacted prior to publication.
7.
The complainant said that both articles were misleading, as they gave the
impression that the man had obtained his job at the Irish in Islington Project
in a corrupt way. The complainant said that he was on the panel which appointed
the man, and Mr Corbyn had nothing to do with his shortlisting or appointment.
He said that the man met the criteria for the job – which he said was not a
council job – and there was a proper process for the appointment. He said that
it was his view that Mr Corbyn would not have known the man or about his
appointment in 1983 – the steps Mr Corbyn took to support the Project were
standard for any local MP. As such, any reference in either of the articles to
Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell helping create the man’s job, promote the two
positions, or give the man any “assistance” was misleading. He said that
neither Mr Corbyn nor Mr McDonnell promoted either of the two men who filled
the roles at the Project. Similarly, the first article was misleading to say
that “you might be able to guess who was given one of these posts” and that it
was not the case that the man’s future was secure thanks to Mr Corbyn or that
the man was “handed” the job. In regards to the second article, the complainant
said that its references to the man having enjoyed a “charmed life, thanks in
part to his friends John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn” was also misleading for
the same reasons. The complainant also said that it was not the case that the
Irish in Islington Project sought funding from Islington Council, or that Mr
Corbyn sought funding from elsewhere. He later went on to clarify that the Project
did not seek funding from Islington Council when it was first established; the
funding it went on to receive from Islington Council was allocated
automatically following the abolition of the GLC.
8.
With regard to the first article specifically, the complainant said that it was
inaccurate to describe the IBRG as “Corbyn’s” IBRG as it had other members who
were politicians, from a range of parties. He said that Mr Corbyn had no input
into the IBRG apart from speaking at public meetings, raising issues in the
House of Commons, and hosting a meeting in December 1983 with the IBRG where he
looked at ways to support the Irish community. The complainant said that the
article should not have labelled the IBRG as being pro-republican as this
implied it was pro-IRA. He said that it was a community group which was more
focussed on social issues and met delegations from all communities. He also
said that the first article was inaccurate to report that Mr Corbyn was the
man’s MP – he said that the man did not live in Mr Corbyn’s constituency.
9.
With regard to the second article specifically, the complainant said that the
bullet point under the headline to the article was inaccurate. He said that Mr
Corbyn did not recommend the named terrorist to the relevant appointment panel,
but that the appointment of the named party was separate to any general
advocacy from Mr Corbyn on behalf of the Irish in Islington Project. The
complainant also said that it was inaccurate to report that the Irish in
Islington Project shared offices with Mr Corbyn. He said that the Project had
its own exclusive office, and many community projects were also based in the
same complex. He said that 131 St John’s Way – where the Irish in Islington
Project was – was a different building from 129 St John’s Way where Mr Corbyn
held his surgeries. He said that this implied a link and closeness between Mr
Corbyn and the Project which did not exist. The complainant said that it was
not the case that the Irish in Islington Project was a subsidiary of the IBRG –
it was a separate organisation with a different constitution and employed
different people. He provided a cutting from a newspaper in 1983 which said:
“Whereas the IBRG has taken the initiative in launching the exercise the
proposed project [the Irish in Islington Project] will be independent of it.”
10.
He also said that it was inaccurate to report that two men employed “set up an
office” as they began work at the Irish in Islington Project when the office
space had already been secured by others. The complainant said that it was
inaccurate to describe the Irish in Greenwich Project as a “sister project” of
the Irish in Islington Project – there was no connection between the projects,
and reporting that the Irish in Greenwich Project had been granted funding
after the 1984 conference implied that this had happened corruptly. The
complainant said that it was not the case that the IBRG organised a press
conference at the House of Commons after the Brighton bombings in 1984. He also
said that the man was not elected to be a councillor in Derry – he said that
instead it was his understanding that he had been nominated to fill a vacancy
between elections, and had never actually been elected.
11.
The publication said that there was nothing in either article which stated or
implied corruption on the part of the Irish in Islington Project by hiring the
men over other candidates. It said that it was accurate to report that when the
Irish in Islington Project applied for funding from the GLC in 1983, Mr Corbyn
also wrote to the GLC to urge them to approve the application for two project
workers. It provided a copy of this letter. When the application was granted,
the posts were taken up by the man and another man – the roles were funded by
the council. It said that as such, it was reasonable to say that the two men
had Mr Corbyn to thank for their jobs. It also said that the complainant was
not in a position to dispute the relationship and association between the man
and Mr Corbyn. It said that it took care to put claims to Mr Corbyn and did not
receive a response or denial. It said that it had not received a complaint from
Mr Corbyn about the article, nor either of the men who took up the posts at the
Project. The publication also referred to a previous ruling by IPSO on a
complaint made by one of the men who took up the posts at the Project – he did
not appear to challenge the assertion that Mr Corbyn had lobbied the GLC to
fund the Irish in Islington Project.
12.
The publication said that whilst the journalist who had written the bullet
point which reported that Jeremy Corbyn had “recommended [a named] jailed IRA
terrorist as [the Irish in Islington Project’s] outreach head” had left its
employment, it accepted that there was no information to indicate that Mr
Corbyn had recommended the named party for the position. The publication
offered to delete the bullet point, and publish the following as an addendum to
the article:
This
article has been amended since first publication by Mail Online to remove the
suggestion that Jeremy Corbyn had recommended [named party] as the outreach
head for the Irish in Islington Project. We are happy to clarify that while Mr
Corbyn advocated for the project to receive funding for the role, there is no
indication that he made a personal recommendation on behalf of [the named
party].
13.
The publication said that it was able to demonstrate that the Project had
applied to Islington Council for funding. It provided the original funding
application submitted to the GLC in 1983, signed by the complainant. It
highlighted that in a section of the application that asked what other sources
of assistance had been sought, and it stated: “Outstanding application with
Islington Council (race relations) for office + full time worker”. It also
provided a cutting from the Islington Gazette which reported that: “A community
centre for the Irish in Islington is to go ahead. Members of Islington
Council’s policy committee agreed to give it more than £68,000 in grants […]”.
Furthermore, it also provided an IBRG newsletter which said that:
“Islington
which so far has not spent a single penny on any Irish activity or organization
in the borough has refused without providing any satisfactory explanation to
fund community workers and premises that the Branch sought on behalf of the
Irish in Islington Project.”
14.
The publication said that describing the IBRG as “Corbyn’s IBRG” was to denote
his heavy involvement and support of the organisation. It provided an IBRG
election statement which was solely devoted to Mr Corbyn and explained how
valuable he was to the organisation:
“Jeremy
joined the IBRG in the early days in November 1982, and since then has been an
immensely valuable and hard worker on our behalf. He enabled us to lobby
Islington Council to provide the Irish Community with a research and advice worker
along with office premises He is part of a delegation that the IBRG are sending
along with an Islington Council delegation to the BBC, ITV, Home Office and
Parliamentary Labour Party to lobby on matters affecting the Irish community”.
The
publication noted that this election statement also set out that the IBRG had
unanimously decided to publicly endorse Mr Corbyn, and to actively support his
election campaign. The publication also provided an IBRG statement which talked
about the branch’s activities from the previous year, which included:
“…persuading Islington Council to call for the withdrawal of British troops
from Ireland [and to] recognise the right of the Irish people to
self-determination”.
15.
The publication said that it was the man’s own claim that Mr Corbyn was his MP,
and the article reported this as a quote attributed to him. Although the
publication accepted that the man’s home was not inside Mr Corbyn’s
constituency, it provided a Companies House document filed by the man in which
he gave the Irish in Islington Project’s address – which was inside Mr Corbyn’s
constituency – as his home address. It said that he used this address for
residential and business purposes from 1984 to 1997.
16.
The publication said that it was not inaccurate to say that that the Project
“shared offices” with Mr Corbyn and noted that the article did not say that
they shared an office. It said that the Project was based at 131 St John’s Way,
and Mr Corbyn held surgeries at 129 St John’s Way – although these were separate
buildings, it said that at the time they were both part of the same complex and
both owned and used by the Council. Where they shared premises, it was not
inaccurate to say that they “shared offices”. The publication said that
describing the Project as a “subsidiary” of the IBRG did not have a legal or
technical business meeting, and instead was to denote that the Project had
stemmed from the IBRG. It provided a newsletter from the IBRG which said that
the Project was founded “as a result” of an Islington IBRG initiative and that
they were “instrumental in the establishment of the Irish in Islington
Project”. It also provided a separate newsletter in which the Islington IBRG
said that it had lobbied Islington Council “to provide the Irish Community with
a research and advice worker along with office premises” – it said that this
was a clear reference to the Project.
17.
The publication said that saying that the two men “set up an office” did not
mean that they were responsible for finding premises or furnishing it. Instead
it meant that the two men started running the operations of the Project from
that office – which the complainant did not dispute. The publication said that
it was not the case that there was “no connection whatsoever” between the Irish
in Islington Project and the Irish in Greenwich Project. It said that this
point was not significant in the context of the overall article, however
describing them as “sister projects” was to indicate that the organisations
were very similar – both Projects supported the IBRG in their literature and
campaigned on the same issues. It also provided a flyer from 1987 from the
Irish in Islington Project, which gave the Irish in Greenwich Project and a
local IBRG on a list of useful addresses. The publication provided a cutting of
an article published on 23 January 1985 which reported that the man “attended a
press conference [the day before the article was published] organised by the
Irish in Britain Representation Group”.
18.
The Committee had previously decided a complaint from the same complainant in
relation to two substantially similar articles published by the Daily Mail
(09444-19 Reynolds v Daily Mail). The text of the Daily Mail article was the
same as the Mail Online articles under complaint, with the exception of the
headlines and subheadlines. The Committee found that complaint against the
Daily Mail raised no breach of the Editors’ Code.
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
19.
It was not in dispute that Mr Corbyn had written to the GLC in support of the
Irish in Islington Project’s funding application and specifically urged that
the application for two project workers be approved. It was clear that Mr
Corbyn had taken active measures to aid the funding application for the two
roles. The grant that was then awarded funded the two men’s jobs at the
Project. As such, it was not misleading for either article to say that Mr
Corbyn had helped create or promote the jobs, or that in doing so, this had
effectively assisted the man. Similarly, the articles had a basis to say that
thanks to “Corbyn and friends”, the man’s future was secure and that the man
enjoyed a “charmed life, thanks in part to his friends [such as] Jeremy
Corbyn”. The Committee noted that furthermore, both of these statements did not
attribute the man’s success only to Mr Corbyn or anyone else. However, the second article had reported in
a bullet point that Mr Corbyn had recommended a named “jailed IRA terrorist” as
the Irish in Islington Project’s outreach head. The publication accepted that
it was unable to provide any information which indicated that Mr Corbyn had
recommended the named party for the position. Where this was a significant
claim which the newspaper was unable to substantiate, the Committee upheld the
complaint under Clause 1(i) on this point. The claim appeared at the start of
the article, and served to exaggerate the connection between Mr Corbyn and the
named party, this constituted a significant inaccuracy which required
correction under Clause 1(ii).
20.
The publication offered a correction on this point in its first substantial
response during IPSO’s investigation. The correction identified the original
inaccuracy and put the correct position on record. As the publication offered
to delete the original inaccuracy and the correction was added as a footnote,
this represented due prominence. As the correction was offered at the first
stage of IPSO’s investigation, this represented due promptness. There was no
breach of Clause 1(ii).
21.
The second article reported that Mr McDonnell had written in support of an
application by the project for capital funding to set up a centre. Unlike with
Mr Corbyn, it was not established that Mr McDonnell had supported the specific
application for the funding of the two project workers. Nevertheless, the
Committee did not consider that it was significantly inaccurate to make
reference to a link between Mr McDonnell and the financial support for the two
job roles. Mr McDonnell had still advocated for financial help to be given to
the group; the nature of this help – capital funding – was elsewhere referenced
and, in any event, the article had been more focused on the link between Mr
Corbyn’s actions and the creation of the roles. There was no failure to take
care in reporting Mr McDonnell’s role in the appointment of the man, and no
breach of Clause 1(i) or significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the
terms of Clause 1(ii).
22.
Where the role was funded by the council, it was not misleading for the
articles to describe it as a “council job”. There was no failure to take care
over the accuracy in reporting the job role and no breach of Clause 1(i), and
not significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of Clause
1(ii).
23.
The articles reported that the Irish in Islington Project applied to Islington
Council for funding for two full-time staff and a headquarters. The complainant
did not appear to dispute that the Project was at times funded by Islington
Council, specifically following the dissolution of the GLC. Where the article
did not make any claim that the Project applied to Islington Council for its
initial funding, the article was not inaccurate as suggested by the complainant
to report that the Project had applied to Islington Council. There was no
breach of Clause 1(i) on this point, and no requirement for a correction under
Clause 1(ii).
24.
The phrase “Corbyn’s IBRG” was unclear – it was a minor reference in the
context of the article and did not claim that Mr Corbyn was responsible for the
IBRG, or that it operated under his leadership. Rather, it did suggest a close
relationship between Mr Corbyn and the organisation. The article explained that
the IBRG supported Mr Corbyn in his campaign to become an MP, and the newspaper
was able to show that the IBRG considered Mr Corbyn a strong supporter of the
IBRG. The newspaper also said that it took care to put this claim to Mr Corbyn
and did not receive any response. As such, it was not misleading to suggest a
close relationship between Mr Corbyn and the IBRG by referring to “Corbyn’s
IBRG”. There was no breach of Clause 1(i) on this point and no requirement for
a correction under Clause 1(ii).
25.
The first article described the IBRG as being “pro-republican”, which the
complainant was concerned suggested that the group was aligned with the IRA.
Although the complainant pointed out that the group had cross-community
engagement, he did not appear to dispute that it was pro-republican in its
aims. Furthermore, a newsletter provided by the newspaper reported that the
Islington branch’s activities included “…persuading Islington Council to call
for the withdrawal of British troops from Ireland [and to] recognise the right
of the Irish people to self-determination”. As such, it was not misleading to
describe the group as being pro-republican. With regards to the complainant’s
concern that this description linked the group to the IRA, the Committee was
clear that republicanism and support for the IRA are distinct – the article did
not make any suggestion that the IBRG was close to or supported the IRA in any way.
As such, the article was not misleading to describe the group as
pro-republican. There was no breach of Clause 1(i) on this point, and no
requirement for a correction under Clause 1(ii).
26.
The claim that Mr Corbyn was the man’s MP was the man’s own claim in the first
article, presented as a quote attributed to him. Clause 1(iv) requires that
care is taken to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact – in this
case, this care had been taken by attributing the claim to the man. There was
no breach of Clause 1(iv). It did not appear to be in dispute that the man did
not live in Mr Corbyn’s constituency. However, the Committee noted that the man
simply said that Mr Corbyn was “my MP”, and the Committee considered that this
description was broad and could encompass the man considering that Mr Corbyn
often acted on his behalf in his role as an MP for example, or whether he felt
he could count on Mr Corbyn’s support – the complainant was not in a position
to know whether this was the man’s view. As such, the Committee did not find
that the claim was significantly misleading as to the connection between Mr
Corbyn and the man as to require correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
27.
The second article did not report that the Irish in Islington Project shared an
office with Mr Corbyn – instead it reported that the Project shared offices
(plural) with Mr Corbyn, which the article explained was because the Project’s
office was in a community centre used by Mr Corbyn for his monthly community
surgeries. As such, the article was clear that the Project had its own office
in the building and did not say that the Project and Mr Corbyn shared a single
room or office. The article did not make any claim that the Project and Mr
Corbyn worked jointly at their respective premises. The Committee noted that
the Project was situated in a different building from where Mr Corbyn held his
surgeries, however it did not appear to be in dispute that both of these
buildings were adjacent and used for council-funded activities. As such, the
Committee considered that the article on this point was not significantly
misleading as to the connection between the Project and Mr Corbyn. There was no
breach of Clause 1(i), and no requirement for a correction under the terms of
Clause 1(ii).
28.
The second article reported that the Irish in Islington Project was a
“subsidiary” of the IBRG. The Committee considered that “subsidiary” was not a
prescriptive legal or technical business term in this context, and instead
denoted that the Project was linked to the IBRG. The newspaper was able to
demonstrate that it was reported contemporaneously that the Project was formed
at the instigation, and with the involvement, of the IBRG, which the
complainant did not appear to dispute. In this case, this was a sufficient
basis to describe the Project as a “subsidiary” of the IBRG. There was no
failure to take over the accuracy of the article in reporting this description.
The complainant’s position that the Project was separate and independent from
the IBRG did not contradict this. As such, the description did not represent a
significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
29.
The second article also reported that the two men “set up an office in a
community centre in the heart of Corbyn’s constituency”. It was not in dispute
that the men began running the Project from the new premises. As such, the
Committee considered that whether the men were responsible for practically
securing or furnishing the office was not significant to the overall article;
it did not affect the central point that the men began working at the
recently-founded Project in council buildings situated in Mr Corbyn’s
constituency. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
30.
Within the second article, it did not appear to be in dispute that both the
Irish in Greenwich Project and the Irish in Islington Project sought to support
Irish communities in London. Furthermore, the article was not an in-depth focus
on the Irish in Greenwich Project or its relationship with the Irish in
Islington Project. As such, any dispute over the extent to which the Irish in
Greenwich Project could accurately be described as a “sister project” was not
significant to the overall article as to require correction under the terms of
Clause 1(ii).
31. The complainant did not dispute that the
Irish in Greenwich Project received funding after Mr Corbyn held a press event
at the House of Commons. The newspaper was entitled to report that this had
occurred, and the complainant was not in a position to dispute whether there
had been a causal link between the two events and the reasons for the local
government grant, especially as he had not been involved in the Irish in
Greenwich Project. As such, the complainant was a third party on this point and
could not make a finding.
32.
The second article did not report that the man had been elected a councillor in
Derry as inferred by the complainant – instead, it said that he had been a
councillor in Northern Ireland. As such, it did not appear to be in dispute
that the man had been a councillor in Northern Ireland, as reported by the
article, and the article was not inaccurate or misleading to report this fact.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusion(s)
33.
The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial
Action Required
34.
The correction which was offered clearly put the correct position on record,
and was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.
Date
complaint made: 24/05/2021
Date decision issued: 22/02/2022
Back to ruling listing