Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10769-22 Edwards v gazette-news.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Ryan
Edwards complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
gazettenews.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an online article headlined “Man, 40, spared jail despite assaulting
pregnant woman”, published on 1 October 2021.
2. The
article was a court report of the complainant’s conviction for what was
described as “assaulting a pregnant woman” and damaging the wing mirror of a
car. The first line of the article said the complainant was “spared jail
despite admitting to assaulting a pregnant woman”. The article then went on to
report that the complainant “denied assaulting the woman and child” but was
“found guilty”. There was a user comment section underneath the article where
another, separate serious criminal allegation had been made against the
complainant by a reader, which referred to the complainant by name.
3. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because
he had never “admit[ted]” to assaulting the woman or child – he said that he had
been found guilty of a non-contact assault. He also said the article was
inaccurate because it omitted to mention that the assault he had been found
guilty of was “non-contact” by way of an “unintentional push”, and that the
word “assault” was misleading as it implied he had physically beaten the woman
and child.
4. The
complainant also said the article was in breach of Clause 1 because it omitted
other biographical pieces of information about the woman that he considered to
be important. The complainant also said the article was in breach of Clause 1
because he said the serious and criminal accusation made in the user-generated
comment was inaccurate – he had not committed the crime the comment alluded to.
The complainant sent an email to the publication on 30 July 2022 at 1.05AM in
which he set out his position regarding the accuracy of the article and
reported the comment. As the comment remained online for nearly three weeks
after it was reported it fell within IPSO’s remit. It was in that same email,
that the complainant had set out that the article was inaccurate for the
reasons outlined in point three.
5. The
publication acknowledged there was an error in the text of the article that
suggested that the complainant had admitted to the offence; it accepted that
the correct position was that the complainant had not admitted assault but had
been found guilty and said the mistake was down to human error. Two days after
IPSO referred the complaint back to the publication, and three weeks after the
complainant had initially contacted the publication, the publication removed
the reference to the complainant having “pled guilty” and offered to publish
the following clarification to the online story:
Mr
Edwards: Clarification Mr Edwards has asked us to clarify he did not admit the
offence of assault. He was found guilty of assault at Colchester Magistrates’
Court on September 21, 2021.
Later in
the investigation - around two and a half months after IPSO referred the
complaint to the publication - the publication amended the clarification to be
a correction published above the text of the article and offered to publish a
standalone correction which stated:
CORRECTION:
A previous version of this article reported that Ryan Edwards admitted to
assaulting a pregnant woman. This was inaccurate; Mr Edwards denied assaulting
the woman but was found guilty.
6. The
publication accepted that that the user-generated comment was unsubstantiated,
and that it had been reported to the publication on 30 July 2022 but had
remained online. The publication noted that the comment had been reported by
the complainant through an email to the editor that was sent at 1.05AM, rather
than through the “report comment” function on the publication’s website. The
publication said that the report of the comment had been missed in
consideration of the wider complaint, partly because the email had been sent so
late at night and the report was not made through the website’s “report
comment” function. IPSO made the publication aware of the comment on 19 August
2022, nearly three weeks after the complainant had reported the comment. The
publication deleted the comment the same day.
7. In
addition, on 24 October 2022, the publication offered to add the following
paragraph to the correction: Furthermore, a user comment left on this article
alleged Mr Edwards had committed a more serious crime. This comment was
unsubstantiated, and it has now been deleted.
8. The
publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that the
complainant had been found guilty of assault, where he accepted that he was
found guilty of non-contact assault. It said it did not consider that “assault”
gave the misleading impression that the complainant had physically beaten the
woman and child referred to in the article. The publication supplied the
Sentencing Council’s definition of common assault to support its position,
which made clear that a person does “not have to be physically violent” to be
found guilty of common assault, and that it covered both “intentional and
reckless acts”. The publication said that there was no obligation for a report
to explain what a charge means in law, where the charge itself is reported
correctly, which it said was the case in this circumstance.
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
9. The
Committee first considered whether it was inaccurate to report that the
complainant had admitted assault. The Committee noted that as well as stating
that “a man has been spared jail despite admitting to assaulting a pregnant
woman in Harwich,” the article also reported that the complainant “denied
assaulting the woman and child” – this was a clear contradiction, and it was
not clear which account of events was correct. It was accepted by the
publication that it was inaccurate to state that the complainant had admitted
to the offence and there was a breach of Clause 1(i) on this point. As the
inaccuracy related to the complainant’s criminal conviction in a court report
it was significant and therefore required correction under Clause 1(ii).
10. The Committee then turned to whether the user-generated comment was in breach of Clause 1. The Committee acknowledged that due to human error, and the complainant reporting the comment outside of the usual pathway for reporting user comments, the initial complaint regarding the comment had been missed by the publication. However, where a complaint had been made via email, and the comment remained online, the Committee found that it fell within the IPSO’s remit. The Committee further found that where the comment made an unsubstantiated allegation of a serious crime, that formed no part of the complainant’s court case, it was inaccurate and the publication’s failure to remove this represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1(i). As it was an unsubstantiated claim about a criminal conviction, the inaccuracy was clearly significant and therefore required correction under Clause 1(ii).
11. The
Committee then considered whether the remedial action taken by the publication
in relation to both the above breaches was sufficient to avoid a breach of
Clause 1(ii). In relation to the inaccurate claim that the complainant had
“admitted” the assault, the Committee noted that this was first drawn to the
publication’s attention on 30 July 2022 and while it was not made through their
designated reporting channels, the publication appeared to accept having
received it. It was also the case that, for the reasons discussed above, the
presence of two clearly contradictory pieces of information in the article
would have made clear at that time that it contained at least one inaccuracy in
relation to the reporting of the complainant’s conviction. While the Committee
accepted that the publication had responded promptly at the point of IPSO’s
involvement, this was not sufficiently prompt and there was a breach of 1(ii).
However, the Committee noted that the substance of the publication’s proposed
remedial action involved the publication of both footnote and standalone
corrections which identified the original inaccuracy and put the correct
position on record. The Committee considered that the publication of those
corrections would fulfil the publication’s obligations under the terms of
Clause 1(ii).
12. In
relation to the user comment, the Committee welcomed the publication deleting
the comment as soon as IPSO’s investigation began. However, the Committee was
concerned that the comment had remained online for nearly three weeks after it
had been reported, and that the correction did not appear until two and a half
months after the inaccuracy had been posted. The Committee found that the error
in the comment had not been corrected sufficiently promptly and there was a
breach of Clause 1(ii). However, the Committee again noted that the publication
proposed to address this issue by way of a correction within the article and
also as a standalone correction which put the correct position on record. The
Committee considered that this would fulfil the publication’s obligations under
the terms of Clause 1(ii).
13. The
Committee then considered whether it was in breach of Clause 1 for the article
to report that the complainant had been found guilty of “assault”, rather than
a non-contact assault specifically and that the push was accidental, as well as
details about the woman referred to in the article. The Committee wished to
make clear that newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information
they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code. In this
case, omitting to include that the assault was “non-contact” did not make the
article inaccurate or misleading, where the article had reported the conviction
correctly, nor was it necessary to provide further information about the victim
of the crime. The Committee did not find a breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusion(s)
14. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial Action Required
15.
Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action was
appropriate. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the
Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or
adjudication. The nature, extent, and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
16. The
Committee concluded that the publication had published inaccurate information
and had not corrected it sufficiently promptly. In such circumstances, the
Committee decided that the appropriate remedy was the publication of the
corrections proposed by the publication. The wording of this correction should
state that it was published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press
Standards Organisation. The full wording and position of this correction should
be agreed with IPSO in advance.
Date
complaint received: 29/07/22
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 10/01/23
Back to ruling listing