Decision of the Complaints
Committee – 13042-22 Muir v Barrhead News
Summary of Complaint
1. Michael Muir complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Barrhead News
breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article
headlined “Teacher found guilty of domestic abuse following ‘toxic’
relationship”, published on 16 November 2022.
2.
The article reported on the complainant’s
sentencing, reporting that he “ended up with a criminal record after he
bombarded his former lover with abusive messages and followed her.” It went to
say that the complainant:
“…sent texts and a letter to the woman after
the end of their ‘toxic’ relationship. Glasgow Sheriff Court heard how
35-year-old Muir also pushed her and threw keys at her, as well as removing her
from a bed and threatening her with violence. Muir also repeatedly walked past
the victim and followed her to her home, as well as a friend’s house. He was
found guilty after trial of a single charge which also states that he
‘persistently contacted the victim and sent her messages of an abusive
nature’.”
3.
The article also appeared online in
substantially the same form, under the headline “Teacher Michael Muir bombarded
ex with abusive texts”.
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 in his case had referred to the allegation
concerning the keys which the Sherriff accepted did not happen.
5.
During IPSO’s investigation, 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 as follows:
“[B]etween
1 June 2019 and 13 July 2020 both dates inclusive, at [several addresses], you
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 a friend’s home address and follow her to her home address (iv)
persistently contact her and send messages of an abusive nature CONTRARY to the
Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, Section 1.”
6.
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.
7.
He then said that the use of the phrase “bombarded” did “not reflect the truth
of the matter”, as “there was a handful of messages sent during the
relationship and zero abusive messages after relationship ended”.
8.
The publication did not accept that the article breached the Code, first noting
its position that the article was a fair and accurate account of the case
against the complainant. Turning to the specific inaccuracies alleged by the
complainant, the publication said that – while some parts of the charge had
been altered and deleted – the only details included in the article were what
remained as part of the charge. It also provided what it said was the precise
wording of the charge after amendments; it said it was not authorised to
provide a copy of the final charge sheet:
“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.”
9.
However, “in an effort to bring th[e] matter to a conclusion”, the publication
removed the references to the complainant having pushed his ex-partner on the
body, thrown keys at her, and attempted to forcibly remove her from a bed from
the online version of the article.
10.
After having received a copy of the letter from the complainant’s solicitor
during IPSO’s investigation, the publication proposed to publish the following
clarification in its print edition on the same page as where the original
article appeared:
“In a previous edition of The Gazette (November 16,
2022), we published details of Michael Muir's conviction for an offence under
Section 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. We have since been asked
to clarify that elements of the original charge specifically those which stated
that Mr Muir pushed his victim, threw keys at her, removed her from a bed and
threatened her with violence were deleted before he was found guilty. We are
happy to make this clarification.”
11.
The publication said that it would not add a clarification to the online
version of the article, where the disputed parts of the charge had been removed
from the article.
12.
It also said that it stood by its description of the complainant having
“bombarded” his ex-partner, where he had been convicted of having
"persistently contacted [the victim] and sent her messages of an abusive
nature”. To support its position on this point, the publication provided a
transcript of the reporter’s notes from the sentencing. These notes included
the following quote from the complainant’s lawyer: “In this case, as far as
messages are concerned, the messages he was convicted [of] were sent over a
period of time on multiple occasions. Beyond these messages there was contact
sending the letter, which was sent after communication from the complainer
saying she didn't want contact from him.”
13.
The publication then said that it was not standard practice to refer to whether
or not an appeal will later be lodged in the context of a sentencing report –
which is what the article under complaint was. It noted that it was not aware,
at the time of the article’s publication, that the complainant intended to
appeal his conviction.
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.
“’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”
16.
The publication said that the further email did not change their position; the
press agency had maintained that the article accurately reported the
complainant’s charge and it had – at any rate – removed the disputed parts of
the charge from the online version of the article early in the IPSO process.
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
17. There were a number of points of dispute in
this complaint with regard to what the final charge against the complainant
comprised of. The
Committee was not in a position to resolve these discrepancies between the
respective positions of the complainant and the publication. 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 the
charge 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 over the accuracy of the article on this point, and
there was therefore a breach of Clause 1 (i).
18.
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 expressly 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 on this point.
19.
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 guilty. There was no breach of Clause 1 on
this point.
20.
The complainant said that the article’s use of the word “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.
Conclusions
21.
The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (i).
Remedial
action required
22.
With regard to the print version of the article, the correction which was
offered clearly put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly
and with due prominence, and should now be published.
23.
Turning to the online version of the article, the Committee noted that the
newspaper had not published a correction, as the disputed information was
removed from the article soon after the publication was made aware of the
complainant’s position. However, where the terms of Clause 1 (i) had been
breached, the publication was required to remedy the breach – regardless of
whether the disputed information was subsequently removed from the article.
24.
The Committee considered that there had been a breach of Clause 1 (i); the
publication was therefore required to remedy this breach. However, the Committee
had not established that the breach had led to the publication of information
that was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. In such
circumstances, the Committee considered that the publication of a correction to
be the appropriate remedy. The wording of the correction should make clear that
the complainant disputed that he had been charged with any offence relating to
having: pushed his ex-partner on the body; threw keys at her; and removed her
from a bed. The correction should make clear that it has been published
following an upheld complaint. The wording should 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.
25.
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
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