Decision of the Complaints Committee – 11860-21 Currie v
dailyrecord.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Louise Currie complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Privacy), and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Scots thug dragged wife out bed and battered
her after thousands vanished from his account”, published on 17th November
2021.
2. The online article reported that a man had been spared
jail after admitting to assaulting his wife to her injury and committing a statutory
breach of the peace. The article stated that the man had attacked “his wife who
kept his books, after finding thousands of pounds were missing from his
account”, which it described as his “business account”. It said that the man
“flew into a rage after realising there was only £1800 left in his business
account when he had expected there to be £8000”. It stated that it was heard in
court that he had found out that HMRC were “chasing him for a £5,000 tax bill”,
and that on the day of the incident he had tried to access his online banking
but was unable to, and that “[h]e asked his wife for the password, and advises
that she had actually closed all the windows in the house prior to giving him
it, in anticipation that there would be an argument”. It went on to state that
the solicitor had said that “[e]ssentially his wife was in control of the
finances for the family, and also did Mr Currie's books”. The article went on
to describe the incident and said that he called his wife a “cheat” and
launched a prolonged assault on her in the early hours of the morning after
they had friends round. It also stated that it had been heard in court that a
“boy was in the room while the assault was going on”, including his age, and
that the attack on the woman had left her with "reddening and
bruising".
3. The complainant, the woman named in the article, said
that the article contained a number of inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1.
While she was not present at court, she said that the money referenced in the
article had been in a joint savings account not a business account. She added
that describing the money as having gone “missing” from her husband’s business
account implied that she had been spending his money without his knowledge. She
also said that it was inaccurate to state that she kept her husband’s books as
he was employed and therefore there were no books to keep. Regarding the online
banking, the complainant said that she had not changed the password, but rather
that he had had a new phone and was unable to log in without verifying the
device. The complainant said that the article was further inaccurate to state
that HMRC were “chasing him for a £5,000 tax bill” as the £5,000 referenced was
actually a tax refund rather than a bill. The complainant said that the article
also inaccurately described the events leading up to the incident: she said
that they had not had friends round; instead she had been out with friends
before returning home, where her partner was already intoxicated. Further, she
did not close the windows prior to the argument starting. In addition, the
complainant said that the article inaccurately described her as “cheat”, which
was not the case.
4. The complainant also said that the article had omitted to
mention some details, in breach of Clause 1, which she considered minimised the
events and excused her husband’s behaviour. She was concerned that the article
said only that she was “reddened and bruised”, but failed to mention that she
was cut, swollen, and had sustained a broken nose. She also said that the
article had stated that a child had witnessed “some” of the events but did not
make clear that they had seen the whole incident. In addition, the complainant
said that the article had omitted to mention: that her husband had also faced
another charge but this had later been dropped; that he had physically
assaulted her on another occasion; that they had not spoken for two weeks prior
to the incident described in the article; and that it omitted to include all
the detail and extent of the attack she faced.
5. The complainant said there had been a further breach of
Clause 2, as she believed that the intrusion into her and her children’s
private life had not been considered. She also considered that there had been a
breach of Clause 9 as she believed the article identified both her and the
child who had been present, who was not relevant to the story.
6. In addition, the complainant also expressed general
concerns about the article and its headline; she considered that the headline
and article sought to blame her for the events and cast her as a “villain”,
contrary to guidance linked to on IPSO’s website.
7. On receipt of the complaint, the publication acknowledged
the complainant’s concern that coverage of domestic abuse should not be framed
in a way that implies that victims of abuse are to blame. It accepted that it
had made mistakes in the handling of the story and said that lessons had been
learned from this case about how to handle these issues in future. It also
removed the article on receipt of the complaint as a gesture of goodwill to the
complainant and apologised to her for any distress caused by the article.
8. However, it did not accept a breach of Clause 1, because
it maintained that the account of the court proceedings contained within the
article was accurate; it noted that the reporter had taken contemporaneous
shorthand notes and provided a copy and transcript of the notes.
9. The publication said that while it did not consider it a
point of significance, it was satisfied that it had been heard in court that
the man’s account was used for his business, and that the notes showed it was
referred to as “his” account and “his online banking”. It also said that the
reporter’s notes contained a reference to an “inland revenue bill” and that
“HMRC were chasing [the man] for £5,000”. The publication also said that the
quote - “[h]e asked his wife for the password and advises that she had actually
closed all the windows in the house prior to giving him it, in anticipation
that there would be an argument”, and the quote containing the word “cheat”
were both verbatim quotes from the court proceedings, which could be seen in
the reporter’s notes. The notes also contained a reference to the complainant
doing her husband’s “books”. The publication went on to state that the article
stated that “[t]he court heard that a ... boy was in the room while the assault
was going on”, not that he had witnessed “some” of the events. The publication
further highlighted that the reporter’s notes showed it had been heard in court
that there had been friends round.
10. In relation to the complainant’s concerns about the
omission of certain details she considered relevant, the publication expressed
its regret for any offence or upset caused by the article; however, it did not
accept that the omission of any of the details the complainant mentioned
rendered the article inaccurate or misleading.
11. The publication said that Clause 2 and Clause 9 had not
been breached; in relation to Clause 2 it said that the information included in
the article was heard in open court, and the complainant was named in the assault
charge and several times throughout the hearing. It further said that the
children concerned were mentioned and named in court and highlighted that they
were not named in the story. The publication also said that with regard to
Clause 9, the complainant was genuinely relevant to the story, and that
although it did not consider the article identified any children, they were
also genuinely relevant.
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 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and
family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including
digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's
reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's
own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material
complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime)*
i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of
crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are
genuinely relevant to the story.
ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially
vulnerable position of children under the age of 18 who witness, or are victims
of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
iii) Editors should generally avoid naming children under
the age of 18 after arrest for a criminal offence but before they appear in a
youth court unless they can show that the individual’s name is already in the
public domain, or that the individual (or, if they are under 16, a custodial
parent or similarly responsible adult) has given their consent. This does not
restrict the right to name juveniles who appear in a crown court, or whose
anonymity is lifted.
Findings of the Committee
12. The Committee first recognised the distress caused by
the article; the matters discussed in the article were highly sensitive and the
coverage had evidently caused significant upset. It welcomed the publication’s
acknowledgment of the complainant’s concerns of the handling of the article and
its intention to learn lessons from the complaint.
13. The Committee’s role was to consider the complaint as
framed under the Editors’ Code of Practice. It noted that the article was a
report of the court proceedings, at which the complainant had not been present.
The complainant disputed that the information heard in court was accurate, but
the publication’s obligation was to give an accurate account of the evidence
and submissions which had been heard and it was not responsible for the
accuracy of the information itself.
14. The Committee first considered the complaint about the
accuracy of the account reported in the article about the events leading up to
the incident. The publication had provided contemporaneous shorthand notes
taken during the court proceedings and a transcript of the notes. The
complainant had said that it was inaccurate to describe the bank account at the
centre of the case as a “business account”, as it was a joint savings account.
The reporter’s notes recorded that the account had been described in court as
“his [the husband’s] account” and “his online banking”; however, the notes did
not record that the account had been described as a “business account”. Where
the publication was not able to demonstrate that the account was a “business
account”, this represented a failure to take care and raised a breach of Clause
1 (i). It was the Committee’s view that in circumstances where the complainant
was also described as having “kept the books” and where the money was described
as having gone “missing”, this implied an allegation that the complainant had
mishandled money held by her husband separately in an account associated with a
business purpose. In the view of the Committee, the distinction between a
business account and any other account was of particular significance, given
that it was being presented as part of a chain of events that had ended with
the assault on the complainant. Given the serious nature of the article and the
fact the claim had appeared in the sub-headline, the Committee considered that
the description of the account as a “business account” was significant and
required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The publication had not
offered to publish any corrective action on this point, and so there was a
further breach of Clause 1 (ii).
15. The journalist’s contemporaneous notes recorded that it
had been heard in court that: HMRC were “chasing” the man for £5,000; that,
according to the defendant’s solicitor, “[h]e asked his wife for the password,
and advises that she had actually closed all the windows in the house prior to
giving him it, in anticipation that there would be an argument”; that the
defendant had called the complainant a “cheat”; that the complainant had done
her husband’s “books”; and that a child was present during the assault. In
light of the content of the notes, the Committee was satisfied that the
publication had been able to demonstrate that it had taken care to accurately
report what had been heard in court in relation to each of the above points;
there was no breach of Clause 1(i).
16. The complainant also said that she and the defendant had
not had friends round prior to the incident and instead that she had been out
with friends before returning home. The reporter’s notes recorded that it had
been heard in court that “two witnesses arrived at the locus” and that “[t]hey
had friends round and they were still there”. The notes indicated that the
publication had taken care to report what had been heard in court on this point
and there was no breach of Clause 1.
17. The Committee next turned to the complainant’s concerns
that the article had omitted to mention certain details and that this had
minimised the gravity of the incident and excused her husband’s behaviour.
While the Committee acknowledged the complainant’s concerns, its role was to
determine whether the omission of certain details had rendered the article
significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted. The complainant had said
that her husband had initially faced another charge, but this charge had been
dropped. In circumstances where the article was reporting on the sentencing of
the defendant for the offences for which he had been convicted, there was no
requirement for the publication to include details of the previous charge; this
omission did not make the article inaccurate or misleading as an account of the
sentencing hearing.
18. The Committee noted that articles are, by their nature,
a summary of what is heard in court; there is no obligation for publications to
include every detail, and not doing so does not, in and of itself, represent a
significant inaccuracy. The complainant had also said that the article did not
describe the extent of the attack or her injuries. The article had described
the incident as a “prolonged assault”, detailed some of the ways the
complainant had been assaulted, and included some details of the complainant’s
injuries. While the Committee acknowledged the importance of communicating the
gravity of the incident, it did not consider that the omission of these further
details made the article significantly inaccurate, where it made clear that
this was a violent attack that had left the complainant injured and accurately
reported on the nature of the conviction and sentence imposed. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on this point.
19. The complainant further said that the article omitted to
mention her claim that her husband had assaulted her previously, and that she
and her husband had not spoken for two weeks prior to the incident described in
the article. While the Committee recognised that these points were of
significance to the complainant, it did not consider that they were significant
in the context of the overall article in circumstances where the article was a
report of a court case about the specific offence for which the defendant was
convicted. In addition, the Committee noted that it could not be established
whether this information had been heard in court. There was no breach of Clause
1 on these points.
20. While the Committee understood that it was distressing
for the complainant to read the article and it acknowledged its impact, the
information included in the article had been made public in court. The
publication was entitled to report on the information heard during court
proceedings, as it had been placed in the public domain. There was no breach of
Clause 2.
21. Clause 9 prevents the identification of relatives or
friends of persons convicted or accused of crime in circumstances where they
are not genuinely relevant to the story. The complainant and the child were
both referenced in the court proceedings, as demonstrated by the reporter’s
notes; in these circumstances, the Committee considered they were both
genuinely relevant to the story. There was no breach of Clause 9.
Conclusions
22. The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial Action Required
23. Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, 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 terms and placement of
which is determined by IPSO.
24. The Committee found that the publication was unable to
demonstrate that it had taken care over aspects of the article, as required by
Clause 1(i). The article had given the misleading impression that the
complainant had played a part in the disappearance of her husband’s money, and
this was significant given that the article reported on court proceedings. The
Committee noted the importance of accurately reporting on court proceedings,
particularly when the proceedings in question related to a serious incident,
such as domestic violence. The Committee considered that the appropriate remedy
was the publication of a correction to put the correct position on record. A
correction was considered to be sufficient given that the misleading
information, while significant to warrant correction under the terms of Clause
1(ii) did not render the substance of the article inaccurate or misleading; the
article accurately reported what offence for which the man was convicted, and
the sentence he had received.
25. The Committee then considered the placement of the
correction. As the article had been taken down, a standalone correction should
be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual
way. It should state that it has been published following an upheld ruling by
the Independent Press Standards Organisation. The full wording and position
should be agreed with IPSO in advance and the wording of the correction should
include information to correct the misleading information: that contrary to the
article, it had not been heard in court that the money the complainant’s
husband believed was missing had been in his “business account”.
Date complaint received: 18/11/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/07/2022
Back to ruling listing