Decision of the Complaints Committee – 12513-22 Muir v Paisley Daily Express
Summary of Complaint
1. Michael Muir complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Paisley Daily Express
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “TEACHER'S YEAR-LONG CAMPAIGN OF ABUSE AGAINST EX / Teacher convicted
of abusing ex-girlfriend given community order”, published on 11 November 2022.
2.
The article – which began on page one of the
newspaper, before continuing on to page four – reported on the complainant’s
sentencing for a crime. It set out the details of allegations against the
complaint, saying that he “bombarded his ex-girlfriend with abusive messages
and followed her after their break-up”. It went on to report, on page four,
that:
“[t]he charge states Muir engaged in a course
of conduct which was the abuse of [his ex-partner]. It is stated Muir pushed
her on the body and threw keys at her. Muir went on to remove her from a bed
and uttered a threat of violence towards her. He also repeatedly walked past
her and followed her to her friend’s and her own home address. The charge goes
on to say Muir ‘persistently contacted [his ex-partner] and sent her messages
of an abusive nature’. Muir was found guilty after trial at Glasgow Sheriff
Court to the single charge.”
3.
The article also appeared online in
substantially the same form, under the headline “Paisley teacher sent former
lover abusive messages and followed her after break-up”.
4.
The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1; he
first said that the article breached Clause 1 by implying that he had been
found guilty of physical violence against his ex-partner, by way of its
reference to pushing his ex-partner, removing her from a bed, and throwing keys
at her. The complainant said that, while these allegations had appeared on the
original charge, they had subsequently been deleted by the Sheriff after they
did not find them to be credible. He said that these had not been heard in
court at all, save that the prosecution had referred to the allegation
concerning the keys which the Sherriff accepted did not happen. The complainant
provided a letter from his solicitor to support his complaint; this letter
said:
“Essentially,
you were convicted of engaging in a course of behaviour which was abusive of
you partner or ex-partner […] in that you did repeatedly walk past her, follow
her to her friend’s home address, follow her to her home address and
persistently contact her and send her messages of an abusive nature. We can
categorically confirm that the Sheriff deleted all the allegations that you had
been violent to the complainer.”
The
letter was accompanied by a copy of the charge; the charge had a number of
deletions and additions. With the further additions and the deletions, the wording
of the charge was:
5.
The complainant also said that the article was inaccurate because it did not
include the Sheriff’s comment that his messages had been “diluted” by the
“behaviour” of his ex-partner. The complainant set out the alleged behaviour,
and said that this was context which should have been included in the article.
The complainant further said that the article omitted to reference the fact
that he had lodged an appeal against the sentence, in breach of Clause 1.
6.
He then said that the use if the phrases “terrorised” and “bombarded” did “not
reflect the truth of the matter”, as “there was a handful of messages sent
during relationship and zero abusive messages after relationship ended”. He
said that the headline’s reference to a “year-long campaign of abuse” was also
inaccurate for this reason.
7.
The publication did not accept that the article inaccurately reported on the
offence for which the complainant had been charged. It said that, after setting
out the wording of the charge and “the matters which supported it”, the article
stated clearly that he had been found guilty of a “single charge” and that the
complainant was not charged with a separate violent offence. While the
publication agreed with the complainant’s position that the charge had been
amended, it did not accept that the amended charge had omitted reference to the
complainant “push[ing his ex-partner] on the body […] throwing keys at her
[and] remov[ing] her from a bed”.
8.
To support its position regarding the reporting of the complainant’s charge,
the publication provided an email sent from the agency which provided the copy
for the article, as well as the reporter’s notes – though the reporter’s notes
did not reference the wording of the charge. The notes did contain the
following exchange between the complainant’s legal representative and the
Sheriff:
The
complainant’s lawyer
“There was no doubt he was negatively effected
[sic] by this relationship and behaved out of character. The persistent contact
after the split was complimentary not threatening or abusive. He was going
through a process of natural human emotion of leaving the relationship. […] I
accept in certain circumstances perpetrating contact can be abusive but in this
case it was very complimentary, it was reminiscing…”
The
Sheriff
“I didn't find him law abiding, this was by my
finding on the last occasion. He was largely a man who struggled to come to
terms with the end of the relationship and moved on from that. I found the
accused guilty of a case of domestic abuse conduct over the course in excess of
a year. This wasn't a one off matter. Yes, there was context with the offending
but the accused did behave in this manner and I found him guilty. This was
sending abusive text messages, persistent contact following direction from the
direction from the complainer not to contact her and following the complainer”.
9.
The agency accepted that the charge “was indeed edited with things scored out
and added in with the use of a pen. However, what has been reported on, is what
remained on the charge i.e. what was not scored out.” The agency went on to say
that it had checked the court minutes, and that they tallied with what was
reported in the article.
10.
After receiving a copy of the letter and charge from the complainant’s
solicitor, the publication contacted the court to ask it to verify the final
wording of the charge; the court verified, via email, that the following was
the correct wording of the charge:
Between June 1 2019 and 13 July 2020 at [three
addresses] you Michael Muir did engage in a course of behaviour which was abuse
of your partner or ex-partner […] in that you did push her on the body, throw
keys at her, attempt to forcibly remove her from a bed and utter a threat of
violence towards her, repeatedly walk past her, follow her to her friend's home
address and follow her to her home address, persistently contact her and send
her messages of an abusive nature.
11.
The publication did not accept that the article claimed the complainant had
sent his ex-partner messages after the end of the relationship – therefore it
did not consider the article contained an inaccuracy on this point.
12.
The complainant said that, having discussed with his solicitor, there was no
reference to “violent charges” in the court’s response because they had been
removed completely rather than being “edited”. Towards the end of IPSO’s
investigation, the complainant provided an email from the court which had been
forwarded to him by his solicitor’s office. A large portion if the email was
redacted; the portion of the email which was not redacted email as follows:
“’MICHAEL MUIR did engage in a course of behaviour
which was abusive of your partner or ex-partner […] in that you did (iii)
repeatedly walk past her, follow her to her friends home address amd [sic]
follow her to her home address; (iv) persistently contact her and send her
messages of an abusive nature
“CONTRARY to the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act
2018, Section 1’
“I trust this if [sic] help.
regards”
13.
The publication said that this further email did not alter its position, and
noted its concern that an email from the court would include a spelling error
in the wording of the charge, and that the charge did not specify the dates and
location of the offence – as would be expected.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
14.
Both the complainant and the publication had provided information from
third-parties to support their respective positions regarding the charge: the
complainant had provided a letter from his solicitor, which said that the
charge as reported in the article was inaccurate, as well as a redacted email
from the court which appeared to support his position; while the publication
had also provided an email from the court itself, confirming that the charge as
listed in the article was what had been given in the court minutes.
15.
The Committee was not in a position to resolve this discrepancy. However, it
noted that – under the terms of Clause 1 (i) – it is the responsibility of
newspapers to take care over the accuracy of its articles. The publication had
not been able to demonstrate that it had taken care over its reporting of the
crime for which the complainant had been convicted, where the contemporaneous
notes provided by the newspaper did not include any reference to the charges
themselves. In addition, the article itself was ambiguous in its reporting of
the charges faced by the complainant. Based on the material put before the
Committee, and absent contemporaneous court notes showing what had been heard
in court, the Committee considered that the publication had not been able to
demonstrate care taken, and there was therefore a breach of Clause 1 (i).
16.
Notwithstanding the fact the newspaper had not been able to demonstrate that it
had taken care over the accuracy of the article, the Committee noted that there
was contradictory information as to what had been heard in court in relation to
the charge. The court had appeared to accept that the court minutes showed that
the charge against the complainant explicitly included references to throwing
keys, pushing the ex-partner on the body, and pushing her on the bed. However,
the complainant’s solicitor had also provided a copy of an amended charge sheet
which omitted these charges, and the complainant had provided a redacted email
from the court which appeared to support his position as to what was put before
the court. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that there was
sufficient information to support a finding that the article was significantly
inaccurate, distorted, or misleading in its reporting of the charge. It
particularly considered this to be the case where the article did not outright
state that the complainant had been convicted of a violent offence; rather, it
reported that he “engaged in a course of conduct which was the abuse of” his
ex-partner – which was not in dispute – and reported the Sheriff’s comment on
the offence for which he had been convicted, namely “You sent abusive messages
and kept persistent contact and followed her. I deem such conduct as
criminal”. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.
17.
Newspapers are allowed to select material for publication, and to omit certain
details from articles – provided that doing so does not render an article
significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. Therefore, there was no
obligation for the publication to include the Sheriff’s comment that the
complainant’s messages had been “diluted” by the “behaviour” of his ex-partner,
or that the complainant intended to appeal his sentence; these pieces of
information did not materially affect the accuracy of the article, where the
complainant had – regardless of any comments from the Sheriff and an intention
to appeal the sentence – been found to have “engaged in a course of conduct
which was the abuse of” his ex-partner. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on this point.
18.
The complainant said that the article’s use of “terrorised” and “bombarded” was
inaccurate. However, in circumstances where both parties accepted the
complainant had been found guilty of abusing his ex-partner by way of following
her, sending her abusive messages, and persistently contacting her, the
Committee did not consider the use of the words “terrorised and bombarded” to
be inaccurate – the behaviour was clearly unwelcome and had persisted for a
year, according to the charge. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1.
19.
The Committee accepted that the online headline’s reference to the complainant
having “sent former lover abusive messages and
followed her after break-up” could be understood to mean that the complainant
had sent his ex-partner abusive messages after they ended their relationship.
However, it did not accept that this was a significantly inaccurate,
misleading, or distorted summary of the charge or what had been heard during
court – regardless of whether the complainant considered the messages to be
complimentary, the Sheriff had deemed them “abusive” and the complainant’s
legal representative had referred to “persistent contact after the split”.
There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
20.
The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (i).
Remedial
action required
21.
Having upheld the complaint, 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
adjudication. The nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
23.
Where the information that raised a breach of Clause 1 (i) appeared on page of
the print edition, the Committee considered that the appropriate placement for
the print correction was on page four or further forward.
24.
In relation to the online version of the article, the breach of Clause 1 (i)
appeared in the text of the article. The appropriate location for the online
correction, the Committee therefore considered, was as a footnote to the
article.
Date
complaint received: 16/11/2022
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/06/2023
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to
the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in
handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the
process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.
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.
