Decision of the Complaints Committee – 27710-20 Mailey v
Sunday Life
Summary of Complaint
1. Richard Mailey complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Sunday Life breached Clause 1 of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “LOCKDOWN DRUGS BUST SHOCKS PRISON
BOSSES”, published on 23 August 2020.
2. The article reported that there had been “more than 50
drug seizures during the coronavirus lockdown” at a prison. It said that
“Ricky” Mailey, the complainant, was “among the main dealers” at the prison and
that “sources” at the prison had told the publication this. It also reported
that Mr Mailey was “serving a 30-month prison sentence.” It went on to state
that Mr Mailey “had a job as an orderly [in the prison…] allowing him to
transport drugs around” and that “his gang included […] a UVF gunman who has
fallen foul of the terror gang [and a] drug dealer who survived a UVF revenge
murder bid after being accused of trying to shoot a prominent loyalist.”
3. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same form, with the headline “Lockdown drugs busts shock Maghaberry Prison
bosses”.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1. While the article named him as “among the main dealers” at
the prison, he said that he had not dealt drugs in prison and in fact had been
released from prison in January 2020, prior to the lockdown period. He provided
an email from the prison confirming this. He said, therefore, that it was
impossible for him to have been “one of the main dealers” in the prison during
the lockdown period, as he was not incarcerated during this period, and noted
that he was not at the time of the article’s publication “serving a 30-month
sentence.”
5. He also said that it was inaccurate to link him to two
individuals with links to the UVF and to state that they were part of his
“gang”, where he said no such gang existed.
6. The publication said it accepted that the article had
been inaccurate in reporting that Mr Mailey had been “among the main dealers”
at the prison during the lockdown period and that he was “serving a 30-month
sentence” at the time of publication. It said it had relied upon a single
confidential source for the information about the complainant included in the
article, and that it did not consider it necessary to verify the information
given by the source as the publication had previously used the same source and
had found them to be reliable and accurate. It did not provide the original
information from the source, citing the need to maintain the confidentiality of
its sources. However, it offered to print the following clarification to put
the correct position on the record:
An article dated 24 August 2020 headlined "Lockdown
drugs busts shock Maghaberry Prison bosses" referred to Ricky Mailey. The
article referred to Mr Mailey being one of the main drug dealers in the prison
during the lockdown period and that two unnamed individuals were part of his
'gang'. Mr Mailey was not in fact in Maghaberry prison during the lockdown
period and left prison in January 2020. We are happy to make that clear.
7. The publication also stated that the article had not
linked Mr Mailey to the UVF, and said that it had simply reported that he dealt
drugs in conjunction with two individuals who were linked to the organisation.
8. The complainant said that only a retraction, apology, and
monetary compensation would be sufficient to resolve his complaint.
9. The publication said that it would not pay compensation
to resolve the complaint. It did, however, amend the proposed correction to
include an apology. The amended correction, which the publication proposed to
publish on page 24 or 25 of its print edition – which was where the original
article was published - and also online – as a standalone correction, a link to
which would appear on the top half of its homepage for a day - to resolve the
complaint, was as follows:
An article dated 24 August 2020 headlined "Lockdown
drugs busts shock Maghaberry Prison bosses" referred to Ricky Mailey. The
article referred to Mr Mailey being one of the main drug dealers in the prison
during the lockdown period and that two unnamed individuals were part of his
'gang'. This was incorrect as Mr Mailey was not in fact in Maghaberry prison
during the lockdown period and left prison in January 2020. We are happy to
retract this and apologise to Mr Mailey for the error.
10. The complainant said that he did not wish to resolve his
complaint on this basis, and requested that the matter proceed to the
Complaints Committee so that they might make a determination as to whether the
Code had been breached.
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
11. The publication did not dispute the complainant’s
position that he was not incarcerated during the lockdown period, and could not
have been part of a prison drug-dealing gang which operated during that time.
It was therefore not in dispute that the complainant had not “been among the
main dealers” in the prison during the lockdown period and had not been a
member of a drug-dealing “gang” with two individuals with links to the UVF, and
that the article was inaccurate on these points.
12. Although both parties agreed that the article contained
inaccuracies, the Committee still needed to consider, in accordance with the
terms of Clause 1 (i), what care had been taken prior to publication over the
accuracy of the information. The publication had relied on a single unnamed
source for the information linking the complainant to drug-dealing in prison
during the lockdown, and had not taken any steps to verify this information.
While the Committee understood that identifying the source would have
potentially breached the terms of Clause 14 (Confidential sources) – as this
Clause makes clear that publications have a moral obligation to protect
confidential sources of information – it did not consider protection of its
source absolved the publication of its requirement to take care over the
accuracy of information included in its articles. In this instance, the
publication had not taken any steps whatsoever to verify the information given
by the source – for instance, by contacting the prison, the complainant or his
representative for comment – and had consequently published uncorroborated and
inaccurate information. This amounted to a serious failure on the part of the
publication under the terms of Clause 1 (i) and resulted in a significant breach
of the Code. The breach related to a serious allegation that the complainant
had engaged in criminal behaviour while incarcerated and was demonstrably
inaccurate. For these reasons, the Committee considered that the inaccuracy was
significant and raised a possible breach of Clause 1 (ii).
13. The publication had, upon receiving confirmation from
the complainant that he was not in prison during the lockdown period, offered
to print a correction, and had amended the proposed correction upon being made aware
of the complainant’s further concerns. The publication proposed to print the
correction on page 24 or 25 of its print version, which was the location of the
original story, and online. The proposed correction identified all disputed
points of accuracy, put the correct position on record, and apologised to the
complainant. It was offered promptly and the Committee considered that the
proposed position of the correction to be duly prominent, where the publication
offered to publish the correction in the location of the original story in
print, and had offered to publish a separate online correction. For these
reasons, there was no further breach of Clause 1 (ii).
Conclusions
14. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).
Remedial Action Required
15. The correction which was offered put the correct
position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence, and
should now be published.
16. The Committee
noted that it the Complaints Committee cannot compel publications to pay money
to complainants should it find that the Code had been breached, and that it
would not require nor request that a publication do so.
Date complaint received: 26/08/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/06/2021
Back to ruling listing