Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 10780-22 Raeburn v southwalesguardian.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Philip Raeburn complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
southwalesguardian.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Tycroes stalker found guilty by magistrates”,
published on 8 March 2022.
2. The
article reported on the complainant’s court case, and the headline described
him as a “stalker” who had been found guilty by magistrates. The article did
not state the specific offence of which the complainant had been found guilty;
it reported that he had been found guilty of “pursuing and pestering a woman
despite her wishes to avoid all contact with him” by “Llanelli magistrates”.
3. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said
that he had originally been charged with stalking, assault, and criminal
damage, however, those charges were dropped after his first hearing, and he was
instead charged and eventually convicted of “harassment without violence”. The
complainant supplied his charge sheet to support this, and said it was
therefore inaccurate to report that he was a “stalker”, as this was a separate
and more serious charge which the court had dropped. He provided his charge
sheet to the publication on the same day he made a complaint to IPSO. He noted
that, as the term featured in the headline, it was also visible in search
engine results and when the post was shared on social media. The complainant
also said it was inaccurate to report he had been tried in Llanelli Magistrates
Court, and the correct position was that the court was West Glamorgan
Magistrates Court in Swansea.
4. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code, as it said the headline was
drawn from the charge the complainant had been found guilty of in court. The
publication said the story was taken from court documents using an online
service, however it was unable to provide evidence for this as it no longer had
access to this service. It said the headline was accurate as it considered the
word “stalker” was not misleading where the complainant had been found guilty
of harassment and where it said stalking could be defined as persistent and
unwanted attention that makes the victim feel pestered and harassed. However,
the publication amended the headline of the article to “Tycroes man found
guilty by magistrates”. The publication did not amend the headline of the
online article until nearly three weeks after the complainant sent it his
charge sheet, and 10 days after IPSO referred the matter as a possible breach
of the Editors’ Code.
5.
Almost two months after the complainant had initially made it aware of his
concerns and almost six weeks after IPSO referred the complaint, the
publication added a correction to the online article and amended the reference
to Llanelli in the text. It added the following correction: CORRECTION: A
previous version of this article headlined ‘Tycroes stalker found guilty by
magistrates’, published on March 8, was incorrect. In fact, the charge of
stalking was dropped. The case was also heard at Swansea Magistrates and not
Llanelli, as previously stated. We are happy to clarify.
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
complainant had originally been charged with stalking, but the charge had been
dropped; the complainant provided the publication with his charge sheet on the
same day as making a complaint to IPSO. The publication did not consider the
term “stalker” to be significantly inaccurate as it considered this to be
synonymous with “harassment”. However, the Committee considered that
distinction to be meaningful given that stalking was itself defined as a
separate offence in law. In addition, as the charge of “harassment without
violence” was not referred to in the article itself readers were not able to
ascertain what crime the complainant had been found guilty of, nor that the
separate charge of stalking had been dropped. As such, the characterisation of
the complainant as a “stalker” was misleading as to the nature of his
conviction. This represented a failure to take care not to print inaccurate
information and was therefore in breach of Clause 1(i).
7. In
addition, the article had reported that the complainant had been tried in
Llanelli magistrates rather than Swansea Magistrates' Court – this was clearly
inaccurate as per the complainant’s conviction and charge sheet and represented
a breach of Clause 1(i).
8. The
Committee considered that misreporting the complainant’s conviction and the
court at which it had been handed down were significant inaccuracies and
therefore assessed whether the corrective action taken by the publication was
sufficient to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii). The publication did not offer a
correction when the complainant shared his charge sheet that confirmed the
correct position, prior to the matter being referred to it by IPSO, nor during
direct correspondence with the complainant after the matter was referred to it
by IPSO. A correction – which appeared below the headline and addressed both
inaccuracies – was only published two months after the publication was made
aware of the correct position. As such, the Committee found the correction was
not sufficiently prompt and there was a breach of Clause 1(ii).
Conclusion(s)
9. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
10.
Having upheld the complaint under Clause 1, the Committee considered what
remedial action should be required. Where the publication had taken steps to
mitigate the effects of the breach by offering to publish a correction, the
Committee considered that the appropriate remedy was the publication of a
further correction, rather than an upheld adjudication.
11. Where
a correction had already appeared on the original article, but the inaccuracy
had appeared in the headline of the article, the Committee found that a new,
standalone correction would be proportionate with a link to that correction
appearing on the website’s homepage. The wording of this correction 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: 01/08/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/12/2022