Decision of the Complaints Committee – 13300-21 Hagyard v
Liverpool Echo
Summary of Complaint
1. Tom Hagyard complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation, through a representative, that Liverpool Echo breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Lawyer
denies sex attacks”, published on 12 October 2021.
2. The article reported that the complainant had appeared in
court charged with rape and sexual assault. It reported the complainant’s
position: these acts had been consensual but “did not lead to full sex and he
remained fully clothed throughout, unlike the woman whose jeans he removed”. It
also reported that the complainant told the jury he had looked forward to a
“distinguished career” before his arrest and being charged.
3. The article also appeared online under the headline
“Trainee solicitor accused of raping student at colleague's party” in
substantially the same format.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1. First, the article had reported that he had told the jury
he was looking forward to a “distinguished career”; this was, in fact, a claim
made by his lawyer. Second, the article had reported that he had removed the
woman’s jeans; he had told the court that she had removed this item of clothing
herself.
5. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Editors’
Code. It maintained that the article was an accurate account of court
proceedings, and provided a copy of the relevant contemporaneous shorthand
notes taken by the reporter to support this. It said the article was not
inaccurate to attribute the comments about a “distinguished career” to the
complainant in circumstances where the comments were made by the complainant’s
legal representative, and with his consent, during proceedings.
6. Notwithstanding this, upon receipt of the complaint, in a
gesture of goodwill, the newspaper amended the online article to reflect this
and recorded the changes with the following footnote clarification. It also
offered to publish this wording in print.
“An earlier version of this article stated that it was Tom
Hagyard who told the jury that he had been looking forward to a distinguished
career before he was arrested and charged. In fact, as the article now states,
this was said on his behalf by his defence counsel, Karina Arden.”
7. Finally, the newspaper did not accept that the article
was inaccurate to report that the complainant had “removed” the woman’s jeans
where the reporter’s notes showed that the complainant had told the court: “I
began to take her jeans off and she lifted her hips”.
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.
Findings of the Committee
8. The newspaper’s obligation was to report court
proceedings accurately. In this case, the article had attributed the statement
that the complainant looked forward to a “distinguished career” to him rather
than to his lawyer. The Committee noted that it was within the convention of
court reporting to attribute submissions
made by a legal representative in court to the party being represented because
such a representative would be speaking under the defendant’s instructions and
on their behalf and that doing so was not significantly inaccurate or
misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point. Nonetheless, the
Committee welcomed the newspaper’s offer to publish a clarification to address
this point.
9. The Committee next considered whether the article was
inaccurate to report that the complainant had “removed” the woman’s jeans. The
publication produced the reporter’s contemporaneous notes of court proceedings,
which included the following statement from the complainant: “I began to take
her jeans off”. In such circumstances,
there was no failure to take care over the accurate reporting of court proceedings
and there was no inaccuracy requiring correction. There was no breach of Clause
1 in regard to this.
Conclusion
10. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
11. N/A
Date complaint received: 22/11/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/04/2022
Back to ruling listing