Findings of the Complaints
Committee – 12028-22 Cook v
northwichguardian.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Judith Cook, complaining on behalf of herself as well as on behalf
of her son, Matthew Cook, complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Northwich Guardian breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), and Clause 9 (Reporting of
crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the following articles and
social media post:
2. The
article, which originally appeared online only, reported that Matthew Cook –
the complainant’s son – had appeared at Chester Crown Court; the article
included his street level address and stated that he had pleaded guilty to
“wounding with intent, possession of a knife and also disclosing private,
sexual photographs”. It also stated that he had been jailed after “stabbing an
18-year-old boy six times”. The article went on to state when the incident had
occurred and describe the complainant as having “’maliciously’ stabbed the
18-year-old”.
3. The
article also appeared on the publication’s Facebook page, accompanied by the
caption: “He has now been jailed”. The headline appeared on Facebook as “Teen
stabbed 18-year-old boy six times and shared sexual photos of girl”.
4. The
publication also published a print version of the article which was headlined
“Teen who stabbed 18-year-old boy is sent to custody” on 27 October 2022; this
article was published after the complainant complained directly to the
publication.
5. The complainant said that the online
article and Facebook post were inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1. She said that
the victim had not been stabbed six times and that the incident had not been
“malicious” as it had been described in the online article. She said that the
victim had been stabbed three times and that this had been done in
self-defence; and that her son had not been the aggressor in the situation.
6. The complainant said that both
versions of the article had also breached Clause 2 as they included her
family’s address where her son had previously resided. She said that, while she
understood that the disclosure of addresses was allowed, the crime had been
committed while he was a youth. She said that including their address was
unhelpful to his family who were still residing at the address, and had caused
them a number of issues including threats, and abuse which she considered would
endanger their lives. She also said that the article and Facebook post
breached Clause 4 as it had caused the family much distress and upset,
particularly as the online version of article contained inaccuracies and both
versions included their home address.
7. The complainant also said that the
article and Facebook post had breached Clause 9 as they had contained
inaccuracies, were unbalanced, and caused distress to the family.
8. Prior to making a complaint to IPSO, the complainant had contacted the publication directly to explain that the victim had been stabbed three times and her son had not been found with a knife. She requested that the online article and any social media versions of be corrected. In response, the publication said that the information relating to the number of times the boy had been stabbed had come from the police, who had subsequently confirmed the information they provided was incorrect. The publication amended the article to reflect the correct position on 21 October 2022 – the day after the article’s initial publication – and apologised to the family for any upset caused by the error. It published an amended version of the article in print on 27 October 2022, headlined “Teen who stabbed 18-year-old boy is sent to custody”; this version of the article did not include the above alleged inaccuracies.
9. The publication accepted that the article inaccurately claimed that the boy had been stabbed six times, however it did not accept that this amounted to a significant inaccuracy – though it did once again apologise to the complainant’s family for any distress caused. It said that the complainant had stabbed his victim several times and pleaded guilty to “unlawfully and maliciously wounding his victim with intent to do him grievous bodily harm”. The publication said that the information had been provided by the Cheshire Police Press Office over the phone, who had said that there were six stab wounds when, in fact, there had only been three. On 21 October, once it had been made aware of the inaccuracy it contacted the police who confirmed they had made an error while relaying the information over the phone. During the IPSO investigation the Police confirmed that a Senior Communications Officer had made an error due to the wording of the incident on the log sheet. The log sheet read: “3 wounds on his torso, one at the bottom of his left abdomen and 2 at the upper right side of his chest”, which he had interpreted as six wounds in total, rather than three with their specified locations.
10. The publication said it had used the information provided by the police in good faith and provided correspondence from Cheshire Police to support its position. Further, it said that it had taken immediate steps to verify the information and amend the article once it had been made aware of the inaccuracy. It noted that it had also added a footnote clarification to the article on 21 October 2022, stating:
Editor’s note: This article originally
incorrectly stated Matthew Cook had stabbed his victim six times and had been
found with a knife on his arrest. This was based on information provided to us
by official sources and used in good faith. Once we were made aware of the
inaccurate information the article was updated accordingly with the correct
details, however we would like to apologise for any offence or distress this
may have caused.
11. On 9 December, the publication
further offered to publish the editors’ note on Facebook, as a pinned comment
on the original post. On 16 December 2022, the publication further amended the
footnote note on the online article to state:
Editor's note: This
article originally incorrectly stated Matthew Cook had stabbed his victim six
times and had been found with a knife on his arrest. In fact Cook had stabbed
his victim three times and the knife was later handed in to police. The initial
article was based on information provided to us by official sources and used in
good faith. Once we were made aware of the inaccurate information the article
was updated accordingly with the correct details, however we would like to
apologise for any offence or distress this has caused.
12. In relation to the complainant’s
concerns about the article’s use of the word “malicious”, the publication said
that the complainant had pleaded guilty to “unlawfully and maliciously wounding
his victim with intent to do him grievous bodily harm”; it provided the court
register which listed this as the charge to which the complainant had pled
guilty.
13. The publication did not accept a
breach of Clause 2, Clause 4, and Clause 9. It said that the press is legally
entitled to report on court hearings and publish details such as a defendant’s
address.
Relevant Clause 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 4 (Intrusion into grief or
shock)
In cases involving personal grief or
shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and
publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right
to report legal proceedings.
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
14. The publication had said that
Cheshire Police had provided it with the incorrect information that the victim
had been stabbed six times; it said it had used this information in good faith.
The Committee noted that at the time of publication, there was nothing to
suggest that the information provided by the police was inaccurate, nor could
the publication reasonably have been aware that it was. In this instance, the
Committee was satisfied that the publication was entitled to rely on the
information provided by the police, and that doing so did not represent a
failure to take care over the accuracy of the online version of the article and
the Facebook post. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.
15. In circumstances where it was not
in dispute that the article and Facebook post had included inaccurate
information regarding the number of times the victim was stabbed, the Committee
next turned to whether the inaccuracy was significant and required correction
in line with Clause 1 (ii). The Committee noted that the complainant had
pleaded guilty to “unlawfully and maliciously wounding his victim with intent
to do him grievous bodily harm” and that it was not in dispute that he had
stabbed the victim a number of times: three. Taking this into account, it was
the Committee’s view that the difference between three stab wounds as opposed
to six was not so significant as to warrant a correction; it did not
meaningfully misrepresent the nature of the incident. However, the Committee
welcomed the steps the publication had taken to correct the inaccurate
information and amend the article promptly. There was no breach of Clause 1
(ii).
16. The complainant had said that the
incident had not been committed “’maliciously’” and that this characterisation
was inaccurate and it did not reflect that her son had been acting in
self-defence. The Committee noted that the charge the complainant had pleaded
guilty to contained the phrase “maliciously wounding [the] victim”, and that
the phrase “’maliciously’” was in inverted commas in the article, indicating
that it was taken from the charge sheet. It was not inaccurate or misleading
for the article to have included this word, and there was no breach of Clause 1
on this point.
17. The complainant believed that the
omission of her son’s position that he had been acting in self-defence made the
article misleading in breach of Clause 1. The Committee noted that
the complainant’s son had pleaded guilty to “unlawfully and maliciously
wounding his victim with intent to do him grievous bodily harm” and this was
also supported by the charge sheet the publication had provided. Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces
of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the
Code. In this case, the article had accurately recorded the complainant’s son’s
plea and the offence for which he was convicted. Therefore, it was not
inaccurate or misleading for the article to omit her son’s position
that he had been “acting in self-defence”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on
this point.
18. The complainant said that the
article had also breached Clause 2 as it had included her family’s address
where her son previously resided. The Committee were sorry to learn that the
complainant and her family had been receiving threats and
abuse. However, the address had been disclosed in open court and was
not subject to a reporting restriction. The Committee also noted that the
publication of a street address helps to accurately identify defendants; for
example to reduce the chance of others with the same name being mistaken for
them. In these circumstances, the article was entitled to include the address,
and this did not amount to a disclosure of private information about the
complainant and their family’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.
19. The Committee next turned to the
complainant’s concerns in relation to Clause 4. The Committee noted that,
unless there are restrictions on reporting imposed by the court, court
proceedings are public, and newspapers are permitted to report on them – this right
is explicitly protected by the terms of this Clause. The Committee acknowledged
that the publication of the article had been distressing for the complainant’s
family, however the publication were entitled to report on court proceedings
and doing so did not represent a breach of Clause 4.
20. The complainant had also complained
under Clause 9 on the grounds that it contained inaccuracies, was unbalanced,
and caused distress to his family. Clause 9 is designed to prevent friends and
family of those convicted of crime being identified unless they are genuinely
relevant to the story. As the article did not identify the
complainant’s family, this Clause was not engaged.
Conclusions
21. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial action required
22. N/A
Date complaint received: 23/10/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/02/2023
The Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
