Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 11209-21 Watson v Sunday Mail
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Jennifer Watson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
Sunday Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or
shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Cord-row
lawyer dies weeks before new rip-off probe”, published on 7th November 2021.
2. The
print article, which appeared on page 19, reported that a lawyer who was due to
face a disciplinary hearing on serious professional misconduct charges had
died; it said that “[a] lawyer who was facing a second complaint of ripping off
a family has been found dead”. It described the accusations the lawyer had been
facing: “He was accused of withholding tens of thousands of pounds due to an
elderly client from her late husband’s will and overcharging her by thousands
more”. The article went on to say that he was due to appear before a Scottish
Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT), but that “the case ha[d] been dropped
after Smith Watson died suddenly in Lochgilphead, Argyll – where he had been
working – on October 17”. It stated that the individual who complained about
the lawyer had complained to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC)
and an investigation was launched by the Law Society of Scotland. It said that
“[t]he estate was finally settled in September 2018 when she got a five-figure payment”.
3. The
article also appeared online under the headline “Shamed Scots lawyer accused of
fleecing OAP found dead just weeks before misconduct hearing”, which was
published on 7th November 2021 in substantially the same format.
4. The complainant,
the daughter of the lawyer, said that the article was inaccurate in breach of
Clause 1 as her father had not been found dead; he had been taken to a local
hospital and died there. To support her position, the complainant provided her
father’s death certificate, which showed the location of his death as being a
local hospital. The complainant also said that the use of the phrase “found
dead” inaccurately implied that her father had died by suicide before the
disciplinary hearing to avoid sanction. The complainant said that the article
was further inaccurate as she considered the wording of it misrepresented the
findings of the SLCC; she said that if he had been accused of scamming or
defrauding anyone the SLCC would have struck him off.
5. The
complainant also considered that there had been a breach of Clause 4 as the
publication of the article occurred one week after her father’s funeral. She
also said that the implication that her father had taken his own life before
the disciplinary hearing caused her and her family much upset and distress and
had led to queries about the nature of his death which she considered
upsetting.
6. The
publication did not accept that the Code had been breached, though it expressed
its regret and apologised to the complainant for any distress caused. It did
not accept that the article gave the misleading impression that the
complainant’s father had taken his own life. In addition, it said that the
article made clear that the man had “died suddenly in Lochgilphead, Argyll –
where he had been working”.
7. The
complaint was passed to the publication on 3rd December 2021 and during direct
correspondence with the complainant the publication offered to remove all
references to her father being “found dead”. This was actioned on 1st February
during IPSO’s investigation; the publication amended the online article and the
headline to remove any reference to the complainant’s father being “found dead”
and published the following footnote correction on the same date:
“A
previous version of this article reported that Ian Smith Watson was 'found
dead'. We would like to apologise for any upset caused, and would like to
clarify that the reference to Mr Watson dying suddenly in Lochgilphead referred
to him passing at a community hospital in Lochgilphead, where he had also been
working previously.”
In
addition, the publication also published the following correction in print in
its established clarifications and corrections column. This was published on
the 30th January 2022:
“On
November last year, we reported that lawyer Ian Smith Watson was ‘found dead’.
We would like to clarify the reference to Mr Watson dying suddenly in
Lochgilphead referred to him passing at a community hospital in Lochgilphead,
where he had also been working previously. We apologise for any upset caused.“
8. In
regard to the complainant’s concerns that the article misrepresented the
findings of the SLCC, the publication said that the article did not state that
he was found guilty, and instead reported that he was facing a complaint,
information which was in the public domain. The publication also highlighted
that the article made no reference to the SSDT finding the lawyer guilty of the
most recent allegation and made no reference to “scamming”.
9. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 4; it said that it was sorry for
any distress caused by the article but considered that the lawyer’s death had
been reported sensitively.
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.
Clause 4
(Intrusion into grief or shock)
In cases
involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with
sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions
should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
Findings
of the Committee
10. The
Committee first wished to express its sincere condolences to the complainant and
her family for the loss of her father.
11. The
newspaper had stated as fact that the complainant’s father had been “found
dead”, whereas he had been taken to a local hospital and died there. During the
investigation, the publication had not set out what steps it had taken to
ensure that care was taken in regard to this inaccuracy. It was the Committee’s
view that, as there appeared to be no basis for the claim, the publication had
failed to take sufficient care not to publish inaccurate information and found
that there had been a breach of Clause 1 (i).
12. As
the inaccuracy related to the circumstances surrounding the man’s death and
where specifically he had died, it was the Committee’s view that this was a
significant inaccuracy, and therefore the newspaper was obliged, in accordance
with the terms of Clause 1(ii), to correct this promptly and with due
prominence.
13. The
Committee then turned to the question of whether the action undertaken by the
publication was sufficient to avoid a further breach of Clause 1 (ii). During
direct correspondence with the complainant on the 4 January, the publication
had offered to remove the reference to the complainant’s father being “found
dead” from the online article. The newspaper had amended the online article and
published a footnote correction and apology on the 1 February; this was during
the early stages of the investigation, which the Committee considered
sufficiently prompt. The correction identified the inaccuracy and put the
correct position on record, and had also contained an apology, which the
Committee considered appropriate in the circumstances. While the inaccuracy had
appeared in the headline of the online article, the Committee considered the
footnote correction was sufficiently prominent, where the headline had also
been amended and the original inaccuracy removed. There was no further breach
of Clause 1(ii) on this point.
14. In
relation to the print article, the publication had published a correction in
print in its established clarifications and corrections column on the 30th
January. The publication’s complaints team had discovered that the article was
also published in print on 28th January, and so the correction was sufficiently
prompt. The correction identified the inaccuracy and put the correct position
on record, and also contained an apology. The print correction had appeared on
page 2 of the newspaper, which the Committee considered sufficiently prominent,
in circumstances where the original print article appeared on page 19. As such,
the Committee considered the action taken was sufficient to meet the terms of
Clause 1(ii).
15. The
complainant had also expressed concerns that the phrase “found dead” had
inaccurately implied her father had died by suicide. While the Committee
acknowledged that it would have been distressing for the complainant and her
family to have been questioned by people about the circumstances of her
father’s death, it did not consider that the article implied that her father
had taken his own life. The article had made no reference to suicide and had
only stated that he had been “found dead” and “died suddenly”; it does not
follow that an individual who has been found dead or who has died suddenly must
have died by suicide. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
16. The
Committee next turned to the complainant’s concerns that the article had
misrepresented the findings of the SLCC; she said if her father had been
accused of scamming or defrauding anyone he would have been struck off. The
online headline stated that the lawyer had been “accused of fleecing [an] OAP”,
and the Committee noted that the article stated that he had been due to appear
before a SSDT on “serious professional misconduct charges”, but that this case
had been dropped due to his death. The article also stated that the individual
had complained to the SLCC and that an investigation had been launched, and the
estate settled. The article had not stated that he had been found guilty of
professional misconduct. The Committee further noted that the article did not
claim that the SSDT had made findings on the case. Where the article had made
clear what accusations had been made against him, and that the case had been
dropped before he appeared at his SSDT, the Committee did not consider the
article was inaccurate or misleading on this point. There was no breach of
Clause 1.
17.
Clause 4 requires that publication is handled sensitively in cases involving
grief or shock and that enquiries and approaches are made with sympathy and
discretion. Although reporting on the death of family members can be very
upsetting to family and friends, deaths affect whole communities and the
obligation to handle publication sensitively does not restrict the right to
report on deaths. The Committee did not consider the article reported on the
death in a way that was insensitive; it reported that the complainant’s father had
been “found dead” and had “died suddenly” in the context of an article that
focused on the allegations that had been made against him, which were a matter
of public record and public interest. The Committee also noted that the
publication had apologised for any distress and upset caused. While the
Committee had found it was significantly inaccurate to state that the
complainant’s father had been found dead, inaccurate information regarding
these circumstances did not amount to insensitive publication that constituted
an intrusion into the complainant’s grief and shock. The Committee noted the
complainant’s position that it had been insensitive to publish the article only
a week after her father’s funeral; however, it considered the publication of
the article was handled sensitively within the meaning of Clause 4. There was
no breach of this Clause.
Conclusion(s)
18. The
complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
Action Required
19. The
published corrections put the correct position on record and were offered
promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.
Date
complaint received: 09/11/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/05/2022
Back to ruling listing