Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10492-22 Portes v Sunday Express
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Jonathan Portes complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
the Sunday Express breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Asylum 'children' actually over 18”,
published on 10th July 2022.
2. The
article, which appeared on page 2, reported “nearly two thirds of asylum
seekers who claimed to be unaccompanied children were found to be over 18”
according to figures published by the Home Office. It then stated that from
“January 2021 to the end of March [2022] the Home Office [had] resolved 2,520
cases after it suspected someone who claimed to be an unaccompanied child was
actually an adult – 1,626 (65 per cent) of them were found to be 18 or over.”
It then reported that the figure also showed “more than half of those claiming
to be unaccompanied children from the start of 2018 were actually adults”, with
“the total number of resolved cases since then [being] 4,814” and applicants
“found to be over 18 in 2,722 (56 per cent) of cases”.
3. The
article also appeared online under the headline “Two thirds of asylum seekers
who claimed to be children were found to be over 18”, with the sub-heading
stating: “NEARLY two thirds of asylum seekers who claimed to be unaccompanied
children were found to be over 18, new figures show”.
4. The
complainant said the claim that “two thirds of asylum seekers who claimed to be
children were found to be over 18” was inaccurate and misleading; in fact, the
majority of asylum seekers identifying as unaccompanied children were indeed
found to be children. The figures reported by the newspaper related only to
those cases where the Home Office had actively disputed the given age of the
asylum seeker. The complainant accepted that the text of the article stated
that the headline figure related to age dispute cases from January 2021 to
March 2022 – which he agreed was an accurate representation of the statistics
published by the Home Office – but did not consider that this mitigated the
inaccurate and misleading impression given by the headline, sub-headline and
opening paragraph.
5. The
publication accepted that, if read in isolation, the headline of the online
article could be misleading. However, it argued that the text of the article
made sufficiently clear that the headline figure related to age dispute cases
from January 2021 to March 2022.
6. Notwithstanding
this, on 5th August 2022 – 25 days after the article’s publication and 15 days
after it had received the complaint from IPSO – the publication amended the
online headline to read “Report into child asylum seekers found two-third
accused of lying were found to be over 18”. It also amended the sub-heading to
read “NEARLY two thirds of asylum seekers suspected of lying when claiming they
were unaccompanied children were found to be over 18, new figures show” and published
the following correction below the headline of the online article:
“A
previous version of this article reported that from January 2021 to the end of
March this year 65 per cent of unaccompanied child migrants who arrived into
the UK via illegal routes were found to be over the age of 18. To clarify, this
figure refers to the 2,315 cases where the Home Office suspected the claimant
was lying about their age. Of these, 1,501 were found to be adults claiming to
be children. There were a further 1,766 unaccompanied children whose age was
not in doubt. If these are included in the total, 36 per cent of all
'unaccompanied children' were in fact adults. The article also reported that
figures showed that 'more than half (56 per cent) of those claiming to be
unaccompanied children from the start of 2018 were actually adults'. This
figure referred to disputed cases only. In fact, 20% of the total number of
asylum seekers claiming to be unaccompanied children between January 2018 and
March 2022. in the UK were later found to be adults We are happy to make this
point clear.”
7. The
publication also published, on 7th August, and the fourth edition of the
newspaper since the article’s publication, a standalone item on page 2, under
the headline “Asylum ‘children’ actually over 18: A clarification”:
“Our
article “asylum ‘children’ actually over 18” published on July 10 reported that
from January 2021 to the end of March this year 65 per cent of unaccompanied
child migrants who arrived into the UK via illegal routes were found to be over
the age of 18. To clarify, this figure refers to the 2,315 cases where the Home
Office suspected the claimant was lying about their age. Of these, 1,501 were
found to be adults claiming to be children. There were a further 1,766
unaccompanied children whose age was not in doubt. if these are included in the
total, 36 per cent of all “unaccompanied children” were in fact adults. The
article also reported that figures showed that “more than half (56 per cent) of
those claiming to be unaccompanied children from the start of 2018 were
actually adults”. this figure referred to disputed cases only. In fact, 20 per
cent of the total number of asylum seekers claiming to be unaccompanied
children between January 2018 and March 2022 in the UK were later found to be
adults. We are happy to make this point clear.”
8. The
complainant, however, did not consider that the steps taken by the newspaper
were sufficient; he expressed concern that a “clarification”, rather than a
correction, had been published and that the wording did not make clear that the
previous articles had been incorrect. The complainant proposed the publication
of the following correction:
“Our
article "Asylum 'children' actually over 18" published on July 10 reported
that from January 2021 to the end of March this year 65 per cent of
unaccompanied child migrants who arrived into the UK via illegal routes were
found to be over the age of 18. This claim was incorrect. It refers only to the
2,315 cases where the Home Office suspected the claimant was in fact over 18,
of whom 1,501 were found to be over 18. There were a further 1,766
unaccompanied children whose age was not in doubt, so approximately 36 per cent
of all unaccompanied child migrants were in fact found to be over 18. The
article also reported that figures showed that 'more than half (56 per cent) of
those claiming to be unaccompanied children from the start of 2018 were
actually adults'. Again, this figure was incorrect, and referred to disputed
cases only. In fact, fewer than 20% of the total number of asylum seekers
claiming to be unaccompanied children between January 2018 and March 2022. in
the UK were later found to be adults We are happy to make this point clear. “
9. The
alternative wording proposed by the complainant was not accepted by the
publication. The matter was passed to the Committee for adjudication.
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
10. The
terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code are explicit in their requirement that
headline statements should be supported by the text of the article. The
Committee emphasised that the body of the article cannot be relied upon to
correct an actively misleading impression given by a headline.
11. The
online headline made the clear assertion that “[t]wo thirds of asylum seekers
who claimed to be children were found to be over 18”. This was misleading and
distorted the Home Office data cited by the newspaper, which related only to
the proportion of disputed cases of unaccompanied child asylum seekers arriving
in the UK; it did not relate to the total number of unaccompanied child asylum
seekers. This was compounded by the sub-heading of the online article, which
repeated the statement. While the Committee noted that the body of the article
detailed that between January 2021 to March 2022 “the Home Office has resolved
2,520 cases after it suspected someone who claimed to be an unaccompanied child
was actually an adult – 1,626 (65 per cent) of them were found to be 18 or
over”, this was not sufficient to rectify the misleading impression already
given by the headline. The publication of the headline and sub-headline
amounted to a clear failure by the newspaper to take care not to publish
misleading or distorted information, raising a breach of Clause 1(i).
12. In
the context of an article about migration and asylum, misrepresenting publicly
available figures that suggested that the proportion of unaccompanied child
asylum seekers was higher than was actually the case was considered significant
and as such required correction under Clause 1 (ii) of the Editors’ Code.
13.
Similarly, the print article incorrectly stated, “NEARLY two third of asylum
seekers who claimed to be unaccompanied children were found to be over 18”. For
the reasons outlined above, this statement and the opening paragraph of the
article misrepresented and distorted the figures published by the Home Office.
As such, the Committee considered that the newspaper had failed to take care
not to publish inaccurate or misleading information under Clause 1 (i). For the
same reasons given above, this was significant and as required correction under
the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
14. The
Committee next considered whether the remedial action taken by the newspaper
was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The publication had amended
the headline of the online article and published a clarification, beneath the
amended headline, 15 days after it had been notified of the complaint by IPSO
and 25 days after the article’s publication; it had also published a
clarification in print, as a standalone article on page 2, two days later.
While the locations of these two items were sufficiently prominent, the
Committee did not consider that they were sufficiently prompt to meet the terms
of Clause 1 (ii). Further, the Committee did not consider that the wording of both
items satisfied the terms of Clause 1 (ii) as they did not identity, and then
correct, the significancy inaccuracies within both versions of the article. The
Committee noted that the wording of both clarifications did not make explicitly
clear that a previous version of the article was inaccurate to state that two
thirds of asylum seekers who claimed to be children were found to be over 18,
as opposed to requiring clarification. As such, there was a further breach of
Clause 1 (ii).
Conclusion(s)
15. The
complaint was upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
16.
Having upheld the complaint, 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 an
adjudication, the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
17. The
Committee considered that both the headline and sub-headline of the online
article inaccurately and misleadingly reported on publicly available figures
relating to the proportion of unaccompanied child asylum seekers arriving in
the UK who were later found to be adults. While the clarification offered by
the newspaper had been inadequate, it had shown a willingness to resolve the complaint
and correct the matter. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a
correction, putting the correct position on record was the appropriate remedy.
18. The
Committee then considered the placement of this correction. This correction
should be added to the foot of the online article, given that the headline had
already been amended, and appear as a standalone correction in the
publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column – both online and in print.
The wording should also be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear
that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press
Standards Organisation.
Date
complaint received: 13/07/22
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/11/22
Back to ruling listing