Decision of the Complaints Committee – 12132-20 Agius v
Hull Daily Mail
Summary of Complaint
1. Alix Agius complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Hull Daily Mail breached Clause 1 and Clause 9 of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Thug bit an inch of man's
finger 'clean off' in brawl at pub”, published on 7 January 2020.
2. The article reported on the sentencing of a man who had
been convicted of grievous bodily harm and had subsequently been “jailed for 12
months.” The article reported that, on the day on which the crime was
committed, the defendant “had drunk nine pints prior to the attack”; was “out
with friends after drinking at Beverley Races”; and had also “been to visit his
grandfather.” It also reported that, in court on the day the man was convicted,
his mother “shouted out from the public gallery: “It wasn’t him, it was the big
fat gypsy. It was the big fat gypsy.”” The article also said that the defendant’s
barrister had said in court that the defendant was “on bail for another violent
attack in June” at the time the crime was committed, and reported the presiding
judge’s statement that the defendant was “on remand for these offences at the
time of this offence.” The article described the incident, saying that the
defendant had “launched a flying headbutt” at another man “who refused to buy
him another pint of lager” before he “punch[ed] him to the floor.” The article
also contained details of the defendant’s previous criminal record, which it
said was “lengthy.” Both the headline and the article referred to the defendant
as a “thug.”
3. The article was also published online in substantially
the same form, under the headline “Inch of man's finger bitten 'clean off' in
brawl found behind bar of Beverley pub.” The online version of the article was
amended 5 hours after its initial publication to state that it was the
convicted man’s grandmother, not his mother, who had shouted out from the
gallery as the man was sentenced.
4. The complainant, the defendant who had been convicted of
grievous bodily harm, said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause
1. The complainant was also complaining on behalf of his mother and
grandmother. He said that, while he had
been sentenced to 12 months in prison, he had only served 11 days, and as such
it was inaccurate to report that he had been “jailed for 12 months.” He went on
to say that, on the day of the incident, he had been visiting his grandfather
in hospital before visiting the pub where the incident took place. He had not
drunk 9 pints prior to the incident, nor had he been to Beverly Races, and
neither of these things had been heard in court in relation to him. The
complainant said that it was actually the victim of the incident who had been
to Beverly Races and drank 9 pints prior to the incident, and provided a
witness statement from the victim which said this. He said that neither his
mother nor his grandmother had shouted out from the public gallery as he was
sentenced; his mother was not in the country on the day of his sentencing, and
while his grandmother was present she had not shouted from the gallery. He also
disputed that his barrister had said in court that he was on bail for a similar
offence at the time of the incident, and that the judge had stated that he was
on remand at the time of the offence. He said that he had not “launched a
flying headbutt” at the victim; while he accepted he had headbutted him, he did
not agree with the publication’s characterisation that it was a “flying
headbutt”. He also said that he had not “punch[ed]” the other man “to the
floor” after the man “refused to buy him another pint” and said that CCTV
showed that the victim’s friend had actually overpowered him and that is why
the pair fell to the floor, and that the other man had initiated the fight.
While the complainant accepted that he had a prior criminal record, he did not
agree that it was a lengthy one, as reported by the article. He also said that
the article was inaccurate to describe him as a “thug”, and said that the term
had not been used in court in relation to him.
5. The complainant also said that Clause 9 (Reporting of
crime) had been breached, as he considered it identified his grandmother and
his mother, both of whom had no connection to the crime for which he was
convicted.
6. The publication said it did not accept that the Code had
been breached. It said that it was satisfied that all information contained in
the article was an accurate report of the court proceedings at which the
complainant had been sentenced. The reporter had confirmed that everything in
the article had been heard in court, although the newspaper was unable to
provide any notes or documentary evidence to support the article’s claims, as
the newspaper’s offices were closed and inaccessible due to Covid-19
restrictions. It went on to say that it did not believe that editorial staff
would be able to return to the office until Spring 2021, and that it could not
say with absolute certainty that the notes would still be in the office once
staff returned.
7. The publication also said that, where the complainant
accepted that he had been sentenced to 12 months in prison, it was not
inaccurate for the article to report that he was “jailed for 12 months”,
regardless of how much time he spent actually incarcerated. While the
publication accepted that it had been heard in court that the complainant had
been visiting his grandfather in hospital on the day of the incident, it said
that it had been heard in court from the complainant’s defence barrister that
the complainant “has a problem with drink”, and that the prosecutor had said
that he had “spent the day at the races.” The publication did not accept that
it had been inaccurate in stating that the complainant had consumed 9 pints on
the day of the incident; it also did not consider that the alleged inaccuracy
represented a significant inaccuracy in need of correction. It accepted that
the complainant’s mother had in fact been out of the country at the time of the
hearing, and it had subsequently amended the article to state that it was in
fact the complainant’s grandmother who had shouted from the public gallery,
after the complainant’s mother contacted the newspaper to make it aware that
she had not been on the country on the day of the alleged incident. It said
that the complainant’s grandmother had posted on social media that she had
referred to the crime’s victim as a “gypsy” as she left the court; as such it
was satisfied with the accuracy of the claim that she had shouted “It wasn’t
him, it was the big fat gypsy. It was the big fat gypsy” from the public
gallery. The publication said that the reporter had returned to the court the
following day to confirm that this was indeed the case, and that a court clerk
and court usher had both confirmed the accuracy of the claim, although it was
unable to offer any documentation of this conversation.
8. The publication did not accept that either the
complainant’s grandmother or mother were identified for the purposes of Clause
9 as they were not named or pictured. Nevertheless, it considered that the
grandmother was relevant to the story, as she had attended court and had,
according to the publication, shouted from the public gallery during the proceedings.
9. While the publication did not accept that the Code had
been breached, it offered to remove any reference to the complainant having
drunk 9 pints and having attended Beverly Races from the online version of the
article, as a goodwill gesture, should that resolve his complaint.
10. The complainant said that the removal of two points of
alleged inaccuracy would not be sufficient to address his concerns regarding
the article, and expressed further concerns that the publication was unable to
provide IPSO with journalist notes to support the article. While the
complainant accepted that his grandmother had said to his partner, as she was
leaving the court, that the victim was a “gypsy”, he said that she had not
shouted from the gallery while sobbing, and had not said “It wasn’t him, it was
the big fat gypsy. It was the big fat gypsy” at any point during the
proceedings. The complainant agreed that a letter from his grandmother
regarding his court case had been posted on social media, and did refer to his
grandmother referring to the defendant as a “gypsy” to the complainant’s
partner as they both left the courtroom – however the letter did not say that
the grandmother shouted from the public gallery.
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 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.
Findings of the Committee
11. The complainant
contested the accuracy of a number of statements reported in relation to the
court proceedings. The first was that the complainant “drank nine pints” before
the attack and had visited Beverley Races on the same day. This claim had,
according to the complainant, been heard in court in relation to the victim and
not the complainant, and the complainant was able to provide a witness
statement which showed this. The newspaper was unable to provide any
documentary evidence – such as journalist notes or court documents – to support
this claim. The Committee also noted that the article appeared contradictory,
where it reported both that the complainant had been at the races and visited
his sick grandfather in hospital on the same day, and that it did not consider
that a quote from the complainant’s barrister referring to “a problem with
drink” was sufficient to support the article’s claim on this point. While the
Committee noted the difficulties caused by changing work arrangements due to
the Covid-19 pandemic, where the publication could not provide any evidence
that care was taken over the accuracy of the claim that the complainant “drank
nine pints” before the attack and had visited Beverley Races on the same day,
the Committee found that Clause 1 (i) had been breached.
12. The article also included the claim that the
complainant’s mother (amended in the online article 5 hours after publication
to read grandmother) had shouted “It wasn’t him, it was the big fat gypsy. It
was the big fat gypsy” from the court gallery while sobbing. While the publication
had amended the online version of the article after being contacted by the
complainant’s mother to make clear that she had not shouted from the public
gallery during the proceedings, the publication had not been able to
demonstrate its basis for stating that it was the complainant’s mother who had
shouted from the public gallery. The Committee found that Clause 1 (i) had been
breached on this point.
13. The claims that the that the complainant was on bail for
another alleged offence at the time of the attack, and that the complainant was
on remand for another offence at the time of the attack, had not been verified
by the publication, by way of notes or previous reports referencing the crimes
for which the complainant was allegedly on remand. The Committee also noted
that the two claims were, on the face of it, contradictory – it is not possible
to simultaneously be on bail and be on remand. The publication was unable to
demonstrate that it had taken care over the accuracy of these claims, and there
was breach of Clause 1 (i).
14. The article reported on a serious crime and the
following court proceedings. The publication was not able to demonstrate that
it had taken care over the accuracy of a report of court proceedings, and the
Committee expressed concern that the publication had been unable to provide
IPSO with any documentary evidence to support the claims made within the
article. The alleged inaccuracies were significant, where the article reported
on a serious crime, and so required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).
15. The Committee turned to whether the actions of the
publication had been sufficient to avoid a breach of Clause 1 (ii). The
publication had amended the online version of the article, 5 hours after
publication and after being contacted by the complainant’s mother, to change
the reference to the complainant’s mother shouting from the public gallery
during court proceedings to the complainant’s grandmother. It had also offered,
during the investigation, to remove all references in the online article to the
complainant having drunk “9 pints” and visited Beverley Races prior to the
incident. The Committee found that these actions did not represent corrective
action as required by the terms of Clause 1 (ii), as neither course of action
made clear what pieces of information had been removed or altered, or that the
publication had taken action to correct them. Taking these points into account,
the Committee found that there was a further breach of Clause 1 (ii).
16. The Committee did not find that the amended article’s
claim that the grandmother had “shouted out from the public gallery: “It wasn’t
him, it was the big fat gypsy. It was the big fat gypsy”” raised a breach of
Clause 1. While the Committee noted that the publication had been unable to provide
evidence to support the amended article’s assertion that the grandmother had
shouted from the public gallery, where it was not in dispute that she had
referred to a “gypsy” during the proceedings and the publication said it had
verified this with court staff, it was satisfied on balance that there was no
breach of Clause 1 on this point.
17. Regarding the alleged inaccuracy that the complainant
had been “jailed for 12 months”, the Committee found that the complainant’s
concern on this point did not raise a breach of Clause, as it was not in
dispute that the complainant had been sentenced to 12 months imprisonment,
regardless of how much time the complainant actually spent incarcerated.
18. The Committee also did not find that any breach of Clause
1 arose from the article’s statement that the complainant had “launched a
flying headbutt” during the incident. Neither party disputed that the
complainant had headbutted another man during the incident, and the Committee
did not find that describing the headbutt as a “flying headbutt” rendered the
article significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted in breach of Clause
1.
19. The Committee also did not find that it was inaccurate
to report the prosecution’s claim that the complainant had attempted to “punch
[another man] to the floor”, where it was attributed to the prosecution
barrister and therefore clearly distinguished from established fact. It also
found that it was not inaccurate to report that the attack had been prompted
after the other man “refused to buy him another pint”, where the complainant
did not dispute that this had been heard in court. The Committee understood
that the complainant disputed with the prosecution’s characterisation of what
occurred during the incident, but the newspaper could not be held responsible
for the accuracy of what was said in court; its responsibility was to ensure
that it correctly reported what was said in court, and the complainant did not
dispute that the prosecution barrister had made the statement reported in the
article.
20. Turning to the complainant’s concern that the newspaper
had inaccurately reported that he had a “lengthy record”, the Committee found
that Clause 1 had not been breached by this alleged inaccuracy. It noted that
the use of the term “lengthy” was to an extent subjective, and that the
newspaper had made clear exactly how many previous convictions the complainant
had and what it was basing its characterisation on, and as such the article was
not inaccurate on this point.
21. The Committee also found that the article’s
characterisation of the complainant as a “thug” did not breach Clause 1; while
the Committee noted the complainant’s upset with the use of the term, it noted
again that the term was subjective, and that the publication was not prohibited
under the terms of Clause 1 from making such a characterisation, where its
basis was clearly set out in the article.
22. Clause 9 protects family and friends of those convicted
of or accused of crime from undue association with the crime being
reported. While the Committee noted that
the article had caused the complainant’s mother and grandmother substantial
embarrassment, it did not consider that the article identified either individual,
as neither were named nor pictured.
Conclusions
23. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i) and
Clause 1 (ii).
Remedial Action Required
24. 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.
25. The Committee found that the publication was unable to
demonstrate that it had taken care over the accuracy of the article, as
required by Clause 1(i). This article included a number of alleged
inaccuracies, several of which were 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
are the outcome of a serious and indictable offence, as was the case with the
article under complaint. However, the Committee also noted the undoubted impact
the Covid-19 pandemic and work-from-home government directives had had on the
newspaper’s normal processes. In addition, the alleged inaccuracies, while
significant enough to warrant correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii), did
not render the substance of the article inaccurate nor misleading; the article
accurately reported what offence the complainant had been found guilty of, and
the sentence received. Taking all factors into consideration, the Committee
concluded that a correction was an appropriate remedy to the breach of Clause
1. The correction should make clear that the complainant disputed the accuracy
of the alleged significant inaccuracies, and that the publication was unable to
prove that the statements were accurate.
26. This correction should be added to the online article
and should also appear in the print version of the newspaper. As the original
print article appeared on page 22 of the newspaper, the correction should
appear on page 22 or further forward. The wording should also be agreed with
IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an
upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. If the
publication intends to continue to publish the online article without further
amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the
headline. If the article is amended, the correction should be published as a
footnote which explains the amendments that have been made.
Date complaint received:
28/07/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/03/2021