Resolution Statement – 28398-20 Katarova v thesun.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Elena Katarova complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “DOGGY DEALINGS Woman who
sold [named couple] puppy once in court for flogging dog with broken leg”,
published on 3 June 2020 and an article headlined “[named third party]'S
STRUGGLE Devastated [named third party] quits social media after Love Island
star suffers abuse over the death of dog Mr Chai”, published on 5 June 2020.
2. The first article reported on the death of a celebrity’s
new puppy who had been bought from a dog breeding and importing company. It
focussed on the breeder, and described how she had previously taken another
customer to court. The court case was reported to have centred over the
customer refusing to return her puppy to the breeder after she had been given a
full refund due to the breeder failing to disclose that the puppy had a metal
splint in its leg. The article stated that the court “ruled against” the customer.
3. The second article also reported on the death of a
celebrity’s new puppy. This article included a quote from the celebrity which
stated that the puppy’s "skull wasn't fully developed. Part of his brain
was exposed. In a tiny dog, any knock probably wasn't very helpful."
4. The complainant, the owner of the breeding and importing
company the puppy was bought from, said that both articles were inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1. She said that it was misleading for the first article to
have the headline “doggy dealings”, where this was clearly a play on the phrase
“dodgy dealings” when in fact the court had found in her favour. With regards
to the second article the complainant said that the quote did not reflect the
veterinary report, which, whilst it reported that the skull was not fully
ossified, did not state the brain was exposed. She said that it was normal for
a puppy’s skull to not be fully ossified at that age and the quote gave the
misleading impression that this was part of the cause of death.
5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
noted that the first article reported that the complainant was successful in
her court case and was offered a financial reward, albeit lowered on appeal. In
the second article, the publication said that a veterinary report had stated
the puppy’s skull was not fully ossified. It said that it if the skull was not
fully developed, whether this was a normal part of development or not, it was
not inaccurate to report that the brain was exposed. It noted an image of the
puppy was included in the article and therefore readers would understand that
the brain was not externally exposed.
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.
Mediated Outcome
6. The complaint was not resolved through direct
correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into
the matter.
7. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to
print the following wording to both articles:
"With respect to Molly-Mae's statements about Mr Chai's cause
of death, a pathology report undertaken in June was inconclusive as to the
cause of death."
And offered to amend the headline of the first article to
read: “Woman who sold [named couple] puppy once in court for supplying dog with
broken leg”
8. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to her satisfaction.
9. 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: 05/10/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/04/2021
Back to ruling listing