Resolution
Statement – 18176-22 A man v The Sunday Times
Summary of Complaint
1. A man 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 “The global hacking network that targets VIPs”
and an article headlined “Hackers for hire”, both published on 6 November 2022.
2. The
first article reported on a hacking organisation available for hire by
“investigators working for autocratic states, British lawyers and their wealthy
clients”. It reported that some of the hacking “work appear[ed] to have
been commissioned by a businessman who runs a European investment fund”.
3. The
first article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the
headline “"Exposed: the global hacking network that targets VIPs”; this version of the article was published on 5
November 2022.
4. The
second article reported on a “criminal network [that] will infiltrate the
computers of VIPs for the right price”. The article contained a section with
the heading “THE ROOTS OF INDIA’S ILLICIT TRADE”. It described a firm
which had been set up “supposedly” to train "’ethical’ hackers”, however
said it had “secretly established a lucrative sideline taking cash from clients
around the world to hack individuals”. This firm was described in the article
as “one of the [Indian hacking industry’s] founding fathers”. The article named
the complainant as the founder of the firm in question, and reported that he
had said his involvement with the firm "only related to ‘robotics,
artificial intelligence and ethical hacking’”. It contained a photograph of the complainant accompanied by the caption
“William and Kate were introduced to [the complainant], founder of the
[named] ‘hacking’ firm”. Within the article, this meeting was described as
follows: “Remarkably, [the complainant] was introduced to the then Duke and
Duchess of Cambridge at a networking event in 2016 […]”.
5. The
second article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the
headline “Caught on camera: confessions of the hackers for hire”; this version of the article was published on 5
November 2022.
6. The complainant said that
both articles were inaccurate, misleading and distorted in breach of Clause 1.
He said the articles portrayed him as ‘a criminal godfather’ who was
responsible for the criminal conduct of the company he founded – which was a
distorted depiction of his role - he had not been involved in the company he
founded for several years.
7. In particular, the
complainant said the description of his firm as a “hacking” firm gave the
impression the firm engaged in criminal hacking – which he disputed. He also
said that the photograph included in the second article have the misleading
impression that he had a larger role in the narrative of “hackers for hire”
than was actually the case, and the heading implied the firm he founded was a
front for illegal hacking. He also said it was inaccurate to report that it was
“remarkabl[e]” that the Duke and Duchess had met him.
8. The complainant believed the
reference in the first article to an unnamed "businessman who runs a
European investment fund" related to him – and that people who knew him
would know this description applied to him, in particular where he was referred
to by his name in the second article. He said that the description of him having
“commissioned” hacking work was not accurate.
9. In response to a direct
complaint received from the complainant, the newspaper added a note below the
headline of both articles stating that the article was subject to a legal
complaint from the complainant. These notes were later amended to state that
they were subject to a legal complaint from the complainant and other
individuals. The complainant thought this was inaccurate as it gave the
misleading impression that these were joint legal complaints, rather than
separate ones.
10. The publication did not
accept a breach of the Code. It said that the first article simply referred to
“a businessman who runs a European investment fund". It said that said this description could describe
thousands of individuals.
11.
With regards to the second article, the
publication did not accept that the article misleadingly implied
that the company founded by the complainant was engaged in illegality or that
the company was a front for illegality. It said it was accurate to report that
the company founded by the complainant was a "founding father" of the
hacking industry; as those who trained there ethically went on to be implicated
or involved in illegality. The publication noted that the article did not
report that the complainant presided over any illegality; that the company was
a front for illegality; or that the complainant founded the company to be a
hacking firm.
12.
The publication said that the use of the word “remarkable” was not inaccurate
as it was not a statement of fact, but a descriptive word and a matter of
opinion. It also said that the inclusion of the photograph was to
illustrate the story and its inclusion in the article did not engage the terms
of Clause 1. The publication also said that notifying readers the article
was subject to a legal complaint was not inaccurate, even if there were more
than one party making such a complaint.
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.
Mediated
Outcome
13. The complaint was not
resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore
began an investigation into the matter.
14. During IPSO’s investigation
the publication offered to delete the complainant’s name and image from the
online version of the second article.
15.
The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
16.
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: 20/12/2022
Date complaint concluded by
IPSO: 26/04/2023