Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 11928-21 Tierney v Wisbech Standard
Summary
of Complaint
1. Steve
Tierney complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Wisbech
Standard breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Police reveal 3 councillors got written warning over Covid”,
published on 15th November 2021.
2. The
article reported that “[t]hree Wisbech town and Fenland district councillors
received written warnings from Cambridgeshire Police for breaching Covid-19
regulations”. It identified by name three councillors as having been at the
Angel Public House on Christmas Eve in 2021, one of them being Steve Tierney.
The article went on to state that the individuals were identified by
Cambridgeshire Police after the seizure of CCTV footage, and that they had not
received fines, but the matter was dealt with by a “written warning”. The
article included some of the text of the letter written to the three
councillors. The letter stated that the police had received a complaint “to
report that you have breached the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions)
Regulations 2020. It is alleged that you have other persons (not from your
household or as part of a permitted bubble) on the 24th December 2020 at the
Angel Public House” and that the police “have reviewed CCTV footage from the
public house and this appears to support the allegation”. The letter also
stated that “Police on this occasion will not be taking any formal action
against you for this breach, but I would like to take this opportunity to
remind you to keep up to date with current government regulation and guidance”.
3. The
complainant, one of the councillors named in the article, said that the article
was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it claimed that he had received a
written warning from the police and that he had breached Covid-19 regulations.
The complainant said that he had never received a written warning from the
police and that he did not commit any breaches of Covid-19 regulations on
Christmas Eve. The complainant further said that a police warning had a
specific meaning and provided a link to a Gov.uk page about police warnings and
cautions. He said that a warning and a caution were the same thing and involved
an individual admitting to an offence and agreeing to be cautioned.
4. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the publication
had made a freedom of information (FOI) request to Cambridgeshire Police, who
confirmed that the letter quoted in part in the article had been sent to three
councillors. The publication provided the correspondence containing the FOI
request and the full letter from the police, which it said made clear the
breaches of the Covid-19 regulations. The publication went on to state that the
identity of the three councillors was confirmed by a senior source who had seen
the CCTV footage. It said that the source who examined the CCTV footage
confirmed Councillor Tierney was one of the three councillors seated at the
same table as other individuals drinking in the pub and that it was certain no
other councillors were present.
5. During
the investigation, the complainant was asked to confirm whether or not he had
received the letter from Cambridgeshire Police; he said that he had not
received a warning or caution from the police but did not confirm or deny
whether he had received the letter quoted in the article.
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’s primary concern was that the newspaper had incorrectly stated
that he had received a “written warning… from Cambridgeshire Police for
breaching Covid-19 regulations”. The article had included much of the text of
the “warning” – a letter from the police – to which it referred. While the
complainant denied having received a “written warning” from the police or
having breached the Covid-19 regulations, he would not confirm or deny to IPSO
whether he had received the letter quoted in the article. This had a
significant impact upon the Committee’s ability to make a finding in regard to
the accuracy of the assertion that the complainant was the recipient of the
correspondence. Notwithstanding this point, the Committee considered that the
publication had demonstrated that it had taken care over the accuracy of this
claim and its presentation of it. The newspaper had a copy of the full letter
and had made an FOI request to Cambridgeshire Police to establish how many
individuals the letter was sent to. In addition, a confidential source had
confirmed which three councillors could be seen in the CCTV footage. In light
of the material provided by the publication to substantiate its position and
the complainant’s declining to provide further information, the Committee did
not establish a significant inaccuracy requiring correction.
7. While
the Committee did not establish a significant inaccuracy requiring correction,
it noted the complainant’s position that, according to the government website,
“warning” could be used interchangeably with “police caution”. However, it was
the Committee’s view that the phrase “written warning” was a non-specific term
and did not exclusively mean that an individual had received a police caution.
The Committee considered that the article made clear the nature of the warning
that was issued by the police.
8. The
complainant had also said that the article was inaccurate to claim that he had
breached Covid-19 regulations. The Committee considered that the article as a
whole made the position clear. It had quoted the letter at length – including
the statement that “Police on this occasion will not be taking any formal
action against you for this breach” – the letter had also stated that the
police had viewed evidence which “appear[ed] to support the allegation” and
sought to remind the recipient of the importance of keeping updated on current
regulations. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusion(s)
9. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
Date
complaint received: 21/11/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/06/2022
Back to ruling listing