Satisfactory
Remedy – 11461-22 Walter-Frayling v herefordtimes.com
Summary
of Complaint
1. Mr
Lee Walter-Frayling complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
that herefordtimes.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Court bans man from entering or loitering
outside Hereford bike shop”, published on 2 September 2022.
2. The
article was a court report about a man who had pleaded guilty to harassment.
The article stated that the "course of conduct which amounted to the
harassment” had included “subjecting [two men] to insults and abuse via email,
on social media, and in person, having unwanted contact with them, and taking
unwanted photographs and videos".
3. The
complainant, the man who had pleaded guilty, said that the article was
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as the court found there was no evidence to
suggest he had posted insults and abuse on social media. The complainant
provided a letter from his solicitor to demonstrate this.
4. While
the publication accepted that that it had not been heard in court that the
complainant was found guilty of harassment by posting insults and abuse on
social media, it did note that this information had appeared on the court
register, which formed the basis for the reporting, but later found that the
court register itself was inaccurate. The publication offered to amend the
online report by removing references to the man sending abuse “on social media”
and “taking unwanted photographs and videos”. It also offered to add the
following correction to the bottom of the article:
Editor's
note: This article has been amended as the original details provided by the
court were incorrect. Mr Frayling's solicitor has confirmed that his guilty
plea did not include social media contact or posting photographs.
5. The
complainant did not accept the proposed wording as a resolution to his
complaint as he did not consider this to be sufficient without financial
compensation from the newspaper. He also wanted the amendment to be published
in print. He said his complaint could not be resolved.
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.
v) A
publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for
defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states
otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
Outcome
6. The
publication requested that IPSO consider whether the remedial measures it had
offered to the complainant amounted to a satisfactory resolution of the
complaint such that, subject to fulfilment of the offer, the complaint could be
closed.
7. The
Committee noted that the inaccuracy had arisen as a result of an error on the
court register. The publication had offered to amend the article as well as
publish a correction online. Where the correction was offered the day after
IPSO’s investigation begun, the Committee considered it to be duly prompt. As
the inaccuracy only appeared online and not in print, the Committee found that
an online correction alone was duly prominent and that a print correction was
unnecessary.
8. In
line with the provisions in paragraph 40 of IPSO’s Regulations; having taken
into account the nature of the complaint and the publication’s remedial actions
in response, outlined in paragraph 7, the Committee concluded that the measures
offered by the publication were a satisfactory resolution of the complaint and,
once the correction is published, the complaint could be closed.
Date
complaint received: 5 September 2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19 October 2022
Back to ruling listing