Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 11997-22 Higginson v manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Antony
Higginson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
manchestereveningnews.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in an article headlined “Mum given overdose of paracetamol, while
being in treated for sickness and pneumonia - she died two weeks later”,
published on 20 October 2022.
2. The
headline of the article – which appeared online only – was followed by the
sub-heading: “Laura Higginson died two weeks after the overdose – but the Crown
Prosecution Service [CPS] found it did not contribute to her death”. The
article explained that the woman – who was the complainant’s wife – was given
“an overdose of paracetamol while being treated for sickness and pneumonia” at
hospital and died two weeks later “from multiple organ failure, sepsis, and
Gitleman’s syndrome”. The article then
stated: “Despite this, the [CPS] found that the overdose did not contribute to
her death”. The article included statements from the complainant, the hospital
trust who treated the woman prior to her death,
and the CPS, with the latter stating: “Having carefully considered all
the available evidence in the case, we concluded that no charges could be
brought against the hospital trust”.
3. The
complainant said that the article misrepresented the findings of the CPS, in
breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy). He denied that the CPS had found the overdose of
paracetamol did not contribute to his wife’s death. Instead, he said that the
CPS concluded that it could not bring charges for gross negligence manslaughter
against the hospital trust.
4. The
publication accepted that its article was inaccurate on this point. When it was
notified of this by the complainant directly, on 20 October 2022 – the day the
article was published – it apologised to
him, via e-mail, for the error and distress caused. It also removed the online
article from its website. It then published a standalone correction in its
online Corrections and Clarification column on 4 November 2022 – upon receipt
of the complaint from IPSO and 15 days after the article’s publication and it
was first notified of the error:
“On
October 19, 2022, we published an article reporting how Whiston Hospital was
found to have given Laura Higginson, 30, of Widnes, an overdose of paracetamol
two weeks before she died in April 2017. The article incorrectly stated that
the Crown Prosecution Service claimed that the overdose did not contribute to
her death. In fact, the CPS has not made any public comment about this. We are
happy to clarify this, and the article was removed on the day of publication”
5. The
complainant considered that the wording of the correction should include an
apology. To resolve the matter, he requested a meeting with the editor and a
full explanation for the error, the publication of an apology and the promise
of additional coverage for the forthcoming inquest and beyond.
6. In
response, the publication confirmed that it would be happy to report any
significant future developments in the case. It also confirmed that the
standalone correction was updated on 15 November 2022 to include an apology –
26 days after the publication had first been notified of the error, and 6 days
into IPSO’s investigation:
“On
October 19, 2022, we published an article reporting how Whiston Hospital was
found to have given Laura Higginson, 30, of Widnes, an overdose of paracetamol
two weeks before she died in April 2017. The article incorrectly stated that
the Crown Prosecution Service claimed that the overdose did not contribute to
her death. In fact, the CPS has not made any public comment about this. We are
happy to clarify this and would like to apologise for the error and any
distress caused. The auricle was removed on the day of publication.”
7. The
complainant did not consider that this was sufficient to resolve his complaint.
He said that he felt “gaslit” by the publication and had not been provided with
a satisfactory explanation for the error.
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
Committee first wished to express its condolences to the complainant and his
family for their loss.
9. The
Editors’ Code makes clear that publications must take care not to publish
inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. This is particularly important
when reporting on deaths, where the utmost care should be taken to avoid making
mistakes. In this instance, it was accepted by both parties that the article
misrepresented the findings of the CPS and had incorrectly reported that it had
made a specific ruling on the circumstances of the complainant’s wife’s death.
Given the sensitivity of the subject matter, and where a full inquest was yet
to conclude on the circumstances of the death and the possible contributing
causes, this represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the
article in breach of Clause 1 (i).
10.
Given that this was a serious and avoidable error that had the clear potential
to cause distress to the complainant in the context of his bereavement, a
correction and an apology were required to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
11. On
the same day that the complainant had contacted the publication to express his
concerns, the online article had been removed. Upon receipt of the complaint
from IPSO, a standalone correction was then published. This correction
identified the inaccuracy, put the correct position on record, and was
sufficiently prominent. While the newspaper had acted promptly, the published
wording did not include an apology for the error. Though the Committee noted
that an apology had subsequently been added, this was published 26 days after
the publication had first been notified of the error. In these circumstances,
and given the nature and context of the breach, the Committee did not consider
this was sufficiently prompt to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii). There was,
therefore, a breach of Clause 1 (ii).
Conclusion(s)
12. The
complaint was upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
13.
Having upheld the complaint under Clause 1, the Committee considered what
remedial action should be required. In coming to a view on the appropriate
remedy in this case, the Committee considered the seriousness and extent of the
breach of the Editors’ Code. It also noted that steps taken by the publication,
both prior to and during IPSO’s investigation to address and correct the
inaccuracy.
14.
While the Committee expressed concern that the initial correction did not
include an apology, it noted that the publication had provided the complainant
with a direct personal apology once it was notified of the error. It also noted
that the publication had included a public apology in the correction once the
complainant had requested that they do so. For these reasons, and where the
inaccuracy had been corrected by this item, though the Committee recorded its
view that the correction did not meet the requirement under 1(ii) with respect
to promptness and the inclusion of an apology, the Committee did not consider
that further action was required.
Date
complaint received: 20/10/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/01/2023
Back to ruling listing