Decision of the Complaints Committee – 12226-20 Coutts v
Daily Star Sunday
Summary of Complaint
1. Graham Coutts complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Star Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “KILLER FRYING IT ON”
published on 28 June 2020.
2. The article, which appeared on page 15, reported that a
man currently serving a life sentence for murder wanted compensation because
his prison did not serve enough chips. It reported that he said that there were
not enough chips in a portion and included a comment from the Prison Service
which said that it “robustly defended claims”.
3. The complainant, the man named in the article as having
made the complaint, said that the article was inaccurate. He said that he was
bringing a case against the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) because he had not
received half of his lunch – not because the prison did not serve enough chips.
He said that he had blogged about his case, in which the nature of his claim
had been made clear. He provided a copy of this blog post entitled “FOOD:
PLEASE SIR, CAN I HAVE SOME MORE?”, in which he set out that he had not been
served half of his lunch, that this was not the first time this had happened,
and that some lunch choices had been removed from the prison menu. The blog post
also set out the complainant’s view that the prison owed a duty of care to
provide sufficient food, and included the complainant’s comment that “Now, [the prison has] started rationing the
portion size of chips!”
4. The newspaper did not accept that the article was
inaccurate. It said that the newspaper was entitled to report the publicly
available blog and had done so accurately – the blog clearly complained about
the portion sizes of chips.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. 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 publication was entitled to report and comment upon
the complainant’s publicly available blog provided that care was taken not to
significantly mislead readers as to its content. The blog explained that the
complainant had not received a complete lunch from the prison and detailed his
concern that the prison was not complying with its duty of care by providing a
sufficient quantity of food; the blog explained that this was the basis for the
complainant’s case against the MoJ. Although he made a comment about the
portion sizes of chips being reduced, it was clear from his blog that he was
not pursuing the case because the prison did not serve enough chips. As such,
reporting that the complainant was seeking compensation for this reason
represented a failure to take care to report the nature of the complainant’s
claim accurately in breach of Clause 1(i). Where this gave the impression that
the complainant’s legal action was being brought for a purely trivial reason
rather than a concern that the prison was not serving sufficient food in
general, this was significantly misleading and required correction under the
terms of Clause 1(ii). Where the newspaper had not offered to take any action
to correct the article, there was also a breach of Clause 1(ii).
Conclusions
7. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
8. 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.
9. The Committee had found that the publication had failed
to take care to accurately report the nature of the complainant’s case against
the MoJ. As such, it decided that the appropriate remedy was the publication of
a correction to put the correct position on record.
10. The Committee then considered the placement of the
correction. The print article had been published on page 15 of the newspaper.
The Committee therefore required publication of a correction on page 15 of the
newspaper, or further forward. The correction should state that it has been
published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards
Organisation. The full wording and position should be agreed with IPSO in
advance.
Date complaint received: 05/08/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/12/2020