Resolution
Statement – 14431-23 Booley v thesun.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Michael
Booley complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 10
(Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “HAZ ABOUT THAT I was
Prince Harry’s Army instructor – his story about ‘suicide’ training is a total
fantasy… here’s why”, published on 22 January 2023.
2. The
article reported the alleged views of the complainant about an account of a
flying exercise described by the Duke of Sussex in his autobiography – the
complainant had accompanied the Duke during this exercise. The article reported
that the complainant had said that the Duke’s recollection of the flight was a
“complete fantasy”, going on to report that he “insist[ed] every detail of the
fight was discussed beforehand and all went to plan. He told [another
newspaper]: ‘I am staggered by this. In shock even’”.
3. The
complainant said that the article breached Clause 1, and denied that he had
said that the Duke’s account of the incident was a “complete fantasy”. He also
said that the article had presented his statement that he was “staggered by
this […] In shock even” in an inaccurate and misleading manner. He said the article presented his shock as
being due to the alleged inaccuracies in Prince Harry’s story – whereas in
reality, he was in shock at being mentioned, and complimented, in the
autobiography.
4. The
complainant also said that the article inaccurately suggested that he believed
the alleged inaccuracies in the autobiography where due to the Duke. The
complainant said he actually believed these inaccuracies were due to the
autobiography being ghostwritten.
5. The
complainant also believed that the article breached Clause 1 by ‘cherry
picking’ parts of his correspondence with another newspaper to suit an agenda.
6. The
complainant also said that the article breached Clause 2 because it was based
on an interview with another newspaper, and he didn’t believe that thesun.co.uk
should have re-published this information. The complainant also said that
Clause 10 may have been breached, as he had heard strange noises on his iPad
and telephone – though he did not specifically say that the publication had
caused these noises.
7. Upon
receipt of the complaint the publication contacted the complainant directly via
email. In this email, it offered to amend the article to remove the references
to “fantasy” and to add the following wording to the article as a footnote:
“According
to an earlier version of this article, now amended, Sergeant Major Michael
Booley said the version of events published in Prince Harry's 'Spare' was a
'complete fantasy'. In fact, Booley has never made any reference to this as a
'fantasy', but believed the Prince's narrative of flying sorties was
'dramatised' and disputed the accuracy of some other accounts in the book. We
are happy to clarify and we apologise for the error.”
8. This
complainant said that he did not receive the above referenced email.
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.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 2
(Privacy)
i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home,
physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii)
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life
without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of
privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of
information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in
the public domain or will become so.
iii) It
is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or
private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clause
10* (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)
i) The
press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden
cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile
telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of
documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without
consent.
ii)
Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or
intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then
only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
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 complainant said that a correction, and a
payment from the publication, would be a satisfactory resolution to his
complaint.
11. To
resolve the complaint, the publication agreed to make the payment, and offered
to print the same wording that had been offered directly to the complainant
previously, but which he had not received.
12. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
13. 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: 27/01/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/06/2023