Findings of the Complaints
Committee – 10375-22 Jones v
nottinghampost.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Neil Jones
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that nottinghampost.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “9 'criminal' plants that can
lead to fines when grown in gardens”, published on 3 July 2022, as well as two
tweets published on 4 July 2022.
2. The
article – which appeared online only – reported on nine plants in the UK that
it claimed could lead to fines when grown in an individual’s garden, with the
headline describing them as “‘criminal’”. It claimed that “some [plants]
are heavily regulated in the UK and, while it is usually not illegal to grow
them in your own garden, controlling the spread of these plants is crucial to
prevent further damage to neighbouring properties or wildland”. It further
reported: “Some are heavily regulated in the UK, with fines dished out to
anyone who fails to keep them under control”.
3. The
article went on to report that “spotting prohibited plants growing
on your property is easy to do when you know what to look for” and a heading in the article posed the question: “Which
plants are considered criminal in the UK?” It then stated: “It is considered an
offence by law to let any of the following plants grow outside in your garden.”
This sentence was followed by a list of different plants including: spear thistle,
common ragwort, broad-leaved dock, curled dock, Japanese knotweed, rhododendron
ponticum, Himalayan balsam, giant hogweed and New Zealand pigmyweed. The
spear thistle passage explained: “This enticing plant is considered to be
highly invasive and poses a significant threat to other native UK species.”
4. The
publication also posted two tweets on 4 July 2022. The first said “Not all
plants are considered good for the environment 🌱” and contained a
video summary of the article under complaint, titled “Nine plants that can lead
to fines when grown in gardens”. The second tweet said: “Common Ragwort – While
the yellow flowers may look inviting, this ‘beauty’ of a weed is actually poisonous
to most mammals 📸 […]” . This tweet included an image of a yellow flower.
5. The complainant said that the
article included several inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1. First he said
that it was not illegal to grow any of the plants listed in the article.
Therefore, it was inaccurate for the article to state that “spotting
prohibited plants growing on your property is easy to do when you know what to
look for”; to pose the question “which plants are considered criminal in
the UK?”; and to claim that “It is considered an offence by law to let any of
the following plants grow outside in your garden".
6. The complainant noted that The Weeds
Act 1959 contains no standalone restriction on growing the plants named in the
Act, or allowing them to grow on private property – absent of a “control
order”. Such an “order” would take the form of a written
notice, issued by the relevant authority requiring the landowner to take action
to prevent the growth and/or spread of specific plants named in the Act: Common
ragwort, broad-leaved dock, curled dock, creeping thistle, and spear
thistle. Without such an order, there could be no criminality. He further
said that some “invasive species” are also listed under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981, but the mere fact of someone having such a plant on their
land was not a criminal offence for which they could be fined. The
complainant said it was important to make sure issues related to the law were
factually accurate, and that the alleged inaccuracies would have an
environmental effect on wildflowers.
7. The complainant also said that the
headline – “9 'criminal' plants that can lead to
fines when grown in gardens” – was inaccurate, again as it was not
“criminal” simply to have such a plant growing in a garden. In addition, he
said the claim that “[s]ome [plants] are heavily regulated in the UK, with
fines dished out to anyone who fails to keep them under control" was
inaccurate as fines are not “dished out” to individuals who fail to control
wildflowers and are in fact quite rare, occurring only when a “control order”
asking an individual to keep the plant in question under control has been
issued and not followed.
8. The complainant further believed
that it was inaccurate to refer to spear thistle as a “highly invasive”
plant “pos[ing] a significant threat to other native UK species” as it is
a native wildflower and there is no evidence that it is a threat to other
species. He said “invasive species” is a term used in English law for a problem
species that is foreign to an area. He said that, therefore, characterising
spear thistle as “invasive” was misleading.
9. In
addition, the complainant said that the first tweet’s claim that “[n]ot all
plants are considered good for the environment” was inaccurate, as plants
do have environmental benefits – such as ragwort. He further said that the
yellow flower pictured in the second tweet was not of a ragwort. The
complainant said that the image appeared to show a marigold plant.
10. The publication did not accept a
breach of Clause 1. Firstly, it quoted the following section of the Weeds Act
1959 to show it had taken care over the accuracy of the article:
(1)Where the Minister of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food (in this Act referred to as “the Minister”) is satisfied
that there are injurious weeds to which this Act applies growing upon any land
he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him,
within the time specified in the notice, to take such action as may be
necessary to prevent the weeds from spreading.
(2)This Act applies to the following
injurious weeds, that is to say— spear thistle (cirsium vulgare), (Savi) Ten.
creeping or field thistle (cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.), curled dock (rumex
crispus L.), broad-leaved dock (rumex obtusifolius L.), and ragwort (senecio
jacobaea L.); and to such additional injurious weeds as may be prescribed by
the Minister by regulations.
11. The publication said that the
headline was clarified by the text of the article which went on to report that:
“Some [plants] are heavily regulated in the UK, with fines dished out to anyone
who fails to keep them under control.” It said the claim that "it is
considered an offence by law to let any of the following plants grow outside in
your garden" was supported by government guidance, titled “Invasive
non-native (alien) plant species: rules in England and Wales”. In this
guidance, under a section titled “Penalties for breaking the law”, it stated
that a person could be fined. The guidance also said, under a heading titled
“Restrictions”, that “you must not allow them to reproduce, or grow or spread
outside of their contained holding”. Furthermore, Section 2 of the Weeds Act
stated that, where an individual "unreasonably fails to comply with the
requirements of the notice, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on
summary conviction be liable to a fine".
12. The publication did however accept
that the following statement in the original version of the article included a
typographical error: “It is considered an offence by law to let any of the
following plants grow outside in your garden.” In light of
this, the article was amended to remove the word “in” on 12 September. This
amendment was accompanied by a footnote clarification:
Update: A previous version of this
article stated that land owners can get prosecuted if they let 'invasive
plants' grow in their garden. The government guidance states: "You must
not plant in the wild, or cause to grow in the wild, invasive non-native
plants. This can include moving contaminated soil or plant cuttings. If you
find invasive non-native plants on your land, you must stop them from spreading
and causing a nuisance or damage to other land or property. If you do not, you
could be responsible for any damage they cause and may be prosecuted.”
13. In response to the complainant’s
concern regarding the article’s description of spear thistle as “highly
invasive and pos[ing] a significant threat to other native UK species",
the publication said in government guidance it was listed as an 'injurious
weed' which are “considered able to cause harm to agricultural pasture.” It
further said the article did not refer to spear thistle as an “invasive
species”, but in fact, stated it was “highly invasive”.
14. The publication also did not accept
that the second tweet - which contained an image which the complainant believed
was not ragwort, as the tweet claimed - was significantly inaccurate. It said
that the complainant could not confirm for certain what the plant was and that
he had said it was “probably corn marigold”. It further said that the tweet
specified the name of the plant as common ragwort and in any event, the image
looked very similar to common ragwort. Therefore, it did not accept that the
image could be misleading as to the appearance of common ragwort. However, it
did offer to remove the tweet as a gesture of goodwill.
15. In response to the publication’s
comments, the complainant explained that there are two relevant pieces of
legislation: he said that under Section 1 and 2 of the Weeds Act an
individual can be ordered to control certain wildflowers and that if they fail
to comply with this order they could be fined.
16. The complainant said that the
newspaper had quoted irrelevant legislation in its defence, without the
relevant context, as the weeds listed in the article were native species. He
said it had quoted the paragraph in the government guidance which referred to
invasive non-native species: “If you bought listed plants before 1 January
2021, you must keep them all in a 'contained holding' (a closed facility that
they cannot escape or spread is not possible). You must not allow them to
reproduce, or grow or spread outside of their contained holding.” The
complainant said this referred to a change in law which made selling certain
large numbers of plants illegal and this was not relevant to the plants
referred to in the article. He further quoted the Weeds Act which said
“Landowners do not have to remove listed plants growing wild from their land.
However, they must not intentionally grow, cultivate or allow to reproduce wild
listed plants” and: “If a listed plant is already growing on your land,
including parks, estates open to the public or private gardens, then in the
view of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the
plants are not considered to be intentionally kept or cultivated”. For this
reason, he said an individual was not committing an offence if there was a
listed plant growing in their garden or land. He said an individual cannot
intentionally plant listed species on their land, or intentionally cause
existing listed plants to spread.
17. The complainant said the removal of
the word “in” in the sentence “It is considered an offence by law to let any of
the following plants grow outside in your garden” did not make any difference
and that the phrase and article were still inaccurate.
18. On 1 December 2022, the publication
offered further amendments in the interest of resolving the complaint. It said
it would amend "Which plants are considered criminal in the UK?” to
instead read “Which plants are considered 'criminal' in the UK?”. It also
offered to amend "It is considered an offence by law to let any of the
following plants grow outside in your garden" to: “Following the issue of
a notice, it could be considered an offence by law to prevent the spread of the
following plants in your garden". It also offered to publish the following
clarification:
Update: A previous version of this
article stated that it is considered an offence by law to let any of the listed
plants grow outside in your garden. Government legislation states "Where a
notice has been served under section one of this [Weeds] Act on the occupier of
any land and that person unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of
the notice, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on summary conviction
be liable to a fine not exceeding [F1level
3 on the standard scale] or, in the case of a second or subsequent
offence, to a fine not exceeding [F1level
3 on the standard scale.]” Therefore, people who fail to comply with the
notice to prevent these listed weeds from spreading, are liable to
fines.
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. The Committee noted that the
article stated at the outset that “it is usually not illegal to grow [these
plants] in your own garden”. However it then went on to refer to the
plants as “prohibited plants growing on your property” before stating “[w]hich
plants are considered criminal in the UK?” and “[i]t is considered an offence
by law to let any of the following plants grow outside in your garden". It
was the Committee’s view that those latter, absolute statements about
illegality were not qualified by the earlier section of the article and gave
the impression that it was a criminal offence for someone to have the listed
plants in their garden in any circumstances.
20. The publication said it had relied
upon information from The Weeds Act and government guidance as the basis for
the article’s claim. The Committee noted that guidance did not have the
same status as legislation in terms of delineating legal activity from illegal
activity. Therefore, the Committee noted the terms of the relevant legislation
when deciding whether there had been a breach. On reviewing this
legislation, the Committee noted that the Weeds Act did not state that allowing
the plants listed in the act to grow inside or outside of an individual’s
garden was illegal in all circumstances and in the way suggested by the
article. For such a plant to be illegal, an individual would need to have
received a notice, and then failed to comply with it; only then would the
individual in question receive a fine. As such, the Committee considered
that the publication had taken insufficient care not to publish inaccurate or
misleading information, in breach of Clause 1 (i), as the article had claimed –
as fact – that it was “an offence by law to let any of the following plants
grow outside in your garden” when this was not supported by the legislation
upon which the article was based. This was a significant inaccuracy, where it
related to circumstances in which an individual could receive a fine and
misrepresented the law. As such, this required correcting under Clause 1 (ii)
of the Code.
21. The Committee next considered
whether the remedial action taken by the publication was sufficient to meet the
terms of Clause 1 (ii). For remedial action to satisfy the terms of Clause 1
(ii), it must correct the original inaccuracy promptly and with due prominence.
In this case, the Committee acknowledged that the first clarification had
quoted government guidance which was relevant to non-native plants. The second
clarification offered by the publication clearly set out the original
inaccuracy and the correct position that people who failed to comply with
a notice to prevent these listed weeds from spreading, were liable to
fines. Turning to the prominence of the clarification offered, the Committee
considered that a footnote clarification was sufficiently prominent in
circumstances where the original inaccuracy had appeared in the body of the
article.
22. The Committee then considered the promptness of the clarification offered as required by Clause 1 (ii). It noted that during direct correspondence between the complainant and publication, the publication had amended the article and published a footnote clarification on 12 September 2022, 11 days after IPSO had referred the complaint to the publication. Following this, during the investigation the complainant raised concerns about the existing clarification, to which the publication offered to amend. The Committee expressed concerns that the publication’s clarification had developed throughout the process, rather than an immediate offer which adequately put the correct position on record. However, where the publication had amended the article after receipt of the complaint, and where a duly prominent clarification was offered during IPSO’s process, on balance, the Committee found that the clarification had been offered promptly. The clarification was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii). There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).
23. The Committee then considered the
headline’s use of the term “criminal” separately. While the article was
inconsistent in the way it had described the repercussions and legal status of
the selected plants grown on an individual’s land, the Committee accepted that
– in specific instances – the growth of these plants could result in a fine;
provided the individual had failed to comply with a control order. It also
noted that in the headline “criminal” had been contained in inverted commas,
therefore distinguishing the claim as the publication’s characterisation. The
headline was not therefore, in and of itself, inaccurate or misleading. As
such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
24. The article had stated “Some
[plants] are heavily regulated in the UK, with fines dished out to anyone who
fails to keep them under control"; the headline also referred to
said “'criminal' plants that can lead to
fines”. The complainant considered this inaccurate as fines are not “dished”
out but quite rare. He argued that an individual would only incur a fine if
they had failed to comply with the notice. The Committee noted the terms of The
Weeds Act Section 1 and understood that an individual would only incur a fine
if they had failed to comply with the notice. As such, it was not significantly
inaccurate to state that “fines are dished out” where it is possible to get
fines for failing to keep the plants highlighted under control – a position the
complainant did not dispute. Further, the Committee did not consider the term
“dished out” to be significantly inaccurate or misleading, where this was the
newspaper’s characterisation of the issuing of fines: there is no specific
agreed amount that “dished out” refers to, and this was clearly not a claim of
fact about the number or frequency of such fines. There was no breach of Clause
1 on this point.
25. The Committee then considered the
complainant’s concern that it was inaccurate to refer to spear thistle as
“highly invasive” and “a significant threat to other native UK
species”. Where this plant was listed as an “injurious weed” which are
“considered able to cause harm to agricultural pasture” the Committee did not
consider it was significantly inaccurate or misleading to refer to it as an
“highly invasive” and that it “pose[d] a threat to other native UK species” –
particularly in circumstances where the article did not claim that spear
thistle was not native to the UK. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
26. The
first tweet claimed that “[n]ot all plants are considered good for the
environment”, which the complainant said was inaccurate. The Committee noted
that “good for the environment” could have several meanings. In the context of
the article which described ways in which people may incur fines for not
controlling the growth of these plants, and the fact that some of these plants
may be harmful to other species, the Committee did not consider the tweet to be
significantly inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
27. The
Committee next turned to the second tweet which contained an image of a yellow
flower which it labelled as common ragwort. Where the complainant was unable to
say for definite which plant this depicted and where the pictured flower looked
very similar to common ragwort, the tweet was not significantly inaccurate or
misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusion(s)
28. The complaint was upheld in part
under Clause 1 (i).
Remedial action required
29. The clarification 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 received: 06/07/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO:22/02/2023
Back to ruling listing