Decision of the Complaints Committee – 11993-21 Brews v mirror.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Andrew
Brews complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “Former soldier jailed for chilling tweet saying
politician should be assassinated”, published on 22 November 2021.
2.The
article reported on the court case of a man who had sent a tweet which the
newspaper characterised as stating “that a member of the Scottish Parliament
should be assassinated”. It stated that the man had been found guilty of
sending messages to the politician “that were grossly offensive, or indecent,
obscene or of menacing character in that it suggested he be shot”. The
headline, a photo caption and the text of the article all reported that he had
been “jailed”.
3. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as he
had not been jailed, but had only been required to pay a £400 fine. The
complainant contacted the newspaper directly shortly after the article was
published, in response to which the publication amended the article and
headline, two days after publication. The complainant was not satisfied with
this response and complained to IPSO, noting that the inaccurate headline had
remained for two days and that the publication had not responded directly to
his complaint, despite changing the article.
4. The
publication had amended the article so that the headline read: “Former soldier
sent politician chilling tweet that he should be shot behind the ear” and the
reference to the complainant being jailed was removed from the text of the
article. A footnote was also added to the article on 23 November which read:
This
article has been amended after publication to correct the sentence given to
Brews - a £400 fine.
5. After
IPSO referred the matter directly to the publication’s internal complaints
department, the publication accepted that the article was inaccurate and
apologised for the error. The publication amended the article further, by
removing the previous footnote and adding a correction to the top of the
article, under the headline and subheading which read:
The
original headline of this article stated Andrew Brews had been jailed. In fact,
he was given a £400 fine. We are happy to clarify this.
6. The
complainant said that this would not resolve his complaint, as he did not
consider this duly prominent where the inaccuracy had also been displayed on
the newspaper’s homepage. The complainant also provided an image of the
homepage with the inaccuracy on it, which he had previously sent to an invalid
email address.
7. The
publication said that it was usually sufficient for a footnote to be added to
the end of an article, and noted that it had published the correction at the
top of the article. However, in light of the complainant’s concerns, it offered
to publish the following as a standalone correction that would be published on
the homepage for 24 hours:
Andrew
Brews - A Correction
A
previous version of our article 'Former soldier sent politician chilling tweet
that he should be shot behind the ear' inaccurately reported that Andrew Brews
had been jailed for sending the offensive tweets. The inaccuracy that Mr Brews
had been jailed originally appeared in the headline and photo caption. In fact,
Andrew Brews was fined £400 for sending the offensive tweets. We would like to
clarify this and confirm that the article has been amended accordingly.
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
8. The
newspaper had accepted that it had inaccurately reported the complainant’s
sentence. Where the sentence had been delivered in open court, the publication
should have been able to verify the information before publishing it. The
newspaper had, therefore, not taken care not to publish inaccurate information,
and there was a breach of Clause 1(i). The nature of the inaccuracy related to
a key part of the criminal proceedings: it stated that the complainant had been
given a custodial sentence, rather than a fine, a considerably less serious
sentence. The difference between the severity of these sentences constituted a
significant inaccuracy and therefore required correction under Clause 1(ii).
9. After
the complainant contacted the publication directly it amended the story and
added a footnote to indicate that a change had taken place. After IPSO referred
the complaint to the newspaper, in its first substantial response the
correction was altered to acknowledge that the original article had
inaccurately reported that the complainant had been jailed, and put the correct
position on record. The correction was also moved to the more prominent
position below the headline, in an attempt to resolve the complaint. Once the
complainant made the publication aware this would not resolve his complaint and
provided a screenshot of the inaccuracy on the homepage a day after
publication, the publication offered a standalone correction on the homepage,
where the inaccuracy had also appeared. The Committee had concerns that the
publication’s offer of correction had developed throughout the process, rather
than an immediate offer to publish a correction of due prominence for both the
inaccuracy within the article and on the website homepage. However, where the
article had been amended within a day of publication, and where a duly
prominent correction was offered during IPSO’s process, on balance, the
Committee found that both corrections had been offered with due promptness and
prominence, and there was no breach of Clause 1(ii).
Conclusion(s)
10. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial
Action Required
11. The
standalone correction which was offered clearly put the correct position on
record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be
published.
Date
complaint received: 22/11/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/03/2022
Back to ruling listing