Resolution
Statement – 12281-20 A woman v The Mail (Cumbria)
Summary
of Complaint
1. A
woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail
(Cumbria) breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Warrant made”, published on 8 August 2020 and an article
headlined “Ban for woman who drove while over the drink drive alcohol limit”,
published on 8 October 2020.
2. The
first article reported that a woman had failed to appear before court and that
a warrant had been issued against her.
3. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the
headline “Warrant for woman charged with drink driving”.
4. The
second article reported that the woman had admitted to drink driving. It also
reported the alcohol limit for drivers in England was 50mg of alcohol per 100ml
of blood, and that the woman had been found to be double this limit.
5. This
article also appeared online in substantially the same format.
6. The
complainant, the woman in both of the articles, said that the article was
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. In the first article, she said that she had
been excused from attending the court and that no warrant had been issued. With
regards to the second article, she said that she had not admitted to drink
driving but had been found guilty, and that the legal limit in England was 80mg
of alcohol, so she had not been at twice the legal limit.
7. The
publication accepted a breach of Clause 1. It said that a court reporter had
attended court and had misread his notes after retuning, believing that a
warrant had been issued when it had not. For the second article, it stated that
the reporter had confused the English drink driving limit with the Scottish
limit. The publication published corrections both online and in print in
relation to both articles.
Relevant
Code Provisions
8. 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.
Mediated
Outcome
9. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
10.
During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to delete both of the
online articles.
11. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.
12. As the complaint was successfully mediated,
the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had
been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 09/08/2020
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/11/2020