Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 14834-23 Ochota v The Sunday Times
Summary
of Complaint
1. Mary-Ann
Ochota complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The
Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
an article headlined “Sunak’s threat to pull UK out of the ECHR”, published on
5 February 2023.
2. The
article reported that the prime minister was “prepared to take Britain out of
the European convention on human rights (ECHR) after being warned that 65,000
illegal migrants are expected to come to the country this year.” The article included
a photograph showing the prime minister; the
caption beneath the photograph stated politicians were “finalising plans
for a bill that would make it illegal to claim asylum in Britain for those who
come here illegally”. The article then stated that “official estimates suggest
there will be almost a 50 per cent increase in illegal migration on last year,
when 45,000 claimed asylum, many of them after crossing the Channel in small
boats”. It went on to report that “the political imperative to stop the boats
is heightened by the estimate of 65,000 illegal arrivals this year”. It then
explained that the source of the 65,000 figure was “an official computer model
that tracks migration flows around the world. Last year, when 45,000 illegal
migrants came to the UK, the model was accurate to within 600 people.”
3. The
article also quoted a “senior figure” who said: “the PM is as frustrated as the
public that the number of people arriving here illegally in small boats has
risen fourfold in the last two years.” It also quoted from “a No 10 source” who
said: “for the first time, if you come here illegally, you can expect to be
detained and removed from the UK”.
4. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the
headline “Rishi Sunak’s threat to pull UK out of the ECHR”.
5. The
complainant said that the article breached Clause 1 because it used the terms
“illegal migration” and “illegal migrants” to describe asylum seekers. She said
this gave the inaccurate impression that people seeking asylum had done
something illegal, which she argued misrepresented UK law, as the law does not
describe asylum seekers themselves – or the act of seeking asylum – as
“illegal”.
6. The
complainant also said the article was inaccurate as it quoted an unnamed
source, who had reportedly said: "the PM is as frustrated as the public
that the number of people arriving here illegally in small boats has risen
fourfold in the last two years”. She said the article should have clarified that
arriving in a small boat is not illegal.
7. The
complainant also said the article was in breach of the Code as she considered
it could incite hatred against asylum seekers.
8. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code, or that it had inaccurately
conflated “illegal migrants” and “illegal migration” with asylum seekers. It
said it had in fact been careful not to do this: it was aware “illegal asylum
seeker” is a legally inaccurate phrase – as it is not illegal to seek asylum –
and this was reflected in its internal style guide. It said the terms “illegal
migration” and “illegal migrants” were not used within the article to describe
asylum seeking and asylum seekers; these terms were solely used to describe
illegal migration and illegal migrants.
9. The
publication also said that the law governing immigration was complicated, and
the paper was not a technical legal publication; it was written in everyday
language for the normal reader to understand. It said that an “ordinary” reader
would have no issue understanding what was meant by the term “illegal migrant”,
and that this was not a claim that seeking asylum was illegal. It said the
phrase as commonly used describes those who have entered the country illegally.
10. In
making this argument, the publication relied on Section 24 of the Immigration
Act 1971, which states:
24
Illegal entry and similar offences.
[F1
(A1) A person who knowingly enters the United Kingdom in breach of a
deportation order commits an offence.
(B1)
A person who—
(a
)requires leave to enter the United Kingdom under this Act, and
(b)
knowingly enters the United Kingdom without such leave, commits an offence
(C1)A
person who—
(a)
has only a limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, and
(b)
knowingly remains beyond the time limited by the leave, commits an offence.
(D1
)A person who—
(a)
requires entry clearance under the immigration rules, and
(b)
knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance,
commits an offence.
The
publication said that this legislation showed that it was a criminal offence
for a person who is not a British citizen to knowingly enter or remain in the
UK without authorisation to do so. People entering the country on small boats
would be doing so without authorisation, and describing this as illegal
migration or the people who did so as illegal migrants was not, the publication
said, inaccurate. It also noted the term “illegal migration” was used in
government documents, which it provided to support this position.
11.
Turning to the specific figures used in the article, the publication said the
article was concerned with the number making legitimate asylum claims who have
arrived illegally in small boats. It said Home Office statistics showed that
there were 45,755 people detected arriving by small boats in 2022. It said the
proportion of those established as claiming asylum after arriving in the
country had previously been put at 98%.
12. The
publication also disputed the complainant’s statement that “arriving in small
boats was not illegal”. It said crossing the channel without authorisation is
not a legal way to enter the UK. It also did not accept that the article
allegedly inciting hate against those seeking asylum engaged the Code.
13. The
complainant did not consider it to be relevant that government documents used
the terms “illegal migrants” and “illegal migration”. She said this did not
change the fact that the article had used these terms in a misleading manner.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
14. It
was not in dispute that the act of claiming asylum is not illegal. The article
as a whole made clear that an “illegal” method of entry did not currently act
as a barrier for an asylum claim, but that this would change under proposed
legislation. This was shown, for instance, in the reference to “finalising
plans for a bill that would make it illegal to claim asylum in Britain for
those who come here illegally”, and the quote from a source who stated: “for
the first time if you come here illegally, you can expect to be detained and
removed from the UK”.
15.
However, the article had also referred to “almost a 50 per cent increase in
illegal migration on last year, when 45,000 claimed asylum.” It had later
referred to “45,000 illegal migrants” arriving that same year – therefore using
the phrases “illegal migrant” to describe the 45,000 people who had claimed
asylum. These phrases, where the phrase “illegal migrants” was used to refer to
people who had “claimed asylum”, implied in a misleading manner that the 45,000
people who had claimed asylum were illegal migrants, when it is not illegal to
enter the UK for the purpose of claiming asylum – notwithstanding the fact that
the method by which these individuals had entered the country may have been
illegal, their migration was not. The publication had demonstrated that a high
proportion of those who entered the country by small boats went on to claim
asylum. However, this did not mean that the terms “asylum seeker” and “illegal
migrant” could be used interchangeably when reporting the numbers of people who
entering the country via irregular means. The Committee found the article had
conflated the numbers of “illegal migrants” who had entered the country with
asylum seekers in a misleading way. Therefore, the publication had not taken
care over the accuracy of its reporting, and there was a breach of Clause 1(i).
16. The
inaccuracy related to a matter of national debate, and conflated illegal
migrants with asylum seekers. The inaccuracy we therefore significant and in
need of correction under Clause 1(ii). The publication had not offered any
corrective action and there was therefore a further breach of this sub-Clause.
17. The
Committee then considered whether the publication had breached the Code by
including a quote from a source which referred to people “arriving here
illegally in small boats.” While this was attributed to a specific individual,
the quote clearly included a claim of fact and therefore the newspaper was
required to take care over the accuracy of this claim. However, the claim of
illegality was clearly linked to the method of arrival – rather than a claim
that the act of claiming asylum is illegal.
Where it is unlawful to enter the UK without authorisation –
notwithstanding that a successful asylum claim may later be brought, and the
individual in question not become liable for criminal prosecution – this was
not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted and there was no breach of Clause 1.
18. The
Committee finally considered whether the issue of the article potentially
inciting hatred against asylum seekers engaged the Code. While it appreciated
this issue was highly concerning to the complainant, incitement of hatred is a
criminal matter and does not fall within IPSO’s remit.
Conclusions
19. The
complaint was upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial
action required
20.
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 an
adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
21. The
Committee considered the article had conflated illegal migrants and asylum
seekers in a misleading manner. The misleading information appeared in the text
of the article rather than the headline, and was confined to two lines within
the article – the remainder of the article correctly set out the legal position
of asylum seekers. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a
correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that
the article misleadingly conflated illegal migrants with asylum seekers. It
should also put the correct position on record, namely that it is not illegal
to seek asylum.
22. The
Committee then considered the placement of this correction. With regard to the
print correction, considered that it should be published in the publication’s
regular Corrections and Clarifications column.
23. Turning
to the online correction, if the publication intends to continue to publish the
online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be
published beneath the headline. If the article is amended and the misleading
information removed, the correction should be published as a footnote.
Date
complaint received: 03/04/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/08/2023
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.