Decision of the Complaints Committee – 28414-20 Steshov v
The Daily Telegraph
Summary of Complaint
1. Gleb Steshov complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Russian-born soldier sues MOD over 'spy
fears'”, published on 28 September 2020.
2. The article reported on a then-ongoing employment
tribunal brought by Gleb Steshov against the Ministry of Defence. It stated
that Mr Steshov, a “Russian-born soldier […was] suing the Ministry of Defence
for race discrimination, claiming they thought he might become a spy, an
employment tribunal heard.” It reported that, “in a statement submitted to the
tribunal by Mr Steshov, he alleged that his attempts to join the Intelligence
Corps were halted because the Army thought he might become a Russian spy”. It
also said that “Corporal Steshov felt that the MoD had suspicions about his
past and had put obstacles and excuses in his way to thwart him joining [the
Corps…] Cpl Steshov believes that his failure to be selected as a Russian
interpreter is due to fears he might engage in espionage.”
3. The article included details about the soldier’s
employment claim, saying that he had sued the Ministry of Defence “for racial
discrimination” and that he was “trying to claim a loss of earnings from the
MoD, claiming that he left prematurely because of racial discrimination. He
also wants compensation for personal injury and injury to feelings, for his
exam grade to be removed from records, and for the tribunal to recommend that
the MoD ‘take action to reduce the likelihood of continuing discriminatory
conduct’.”
4. The article also included details about the ex-soldier’s
background and the events that led to him bringing a claim against the MoD. The
article reported that the soldier’s “family came from Russia seeking asylum
from the KGB when he was 13”. It also said that “the tribunal heard” that he
“wanted to join the army because he was ‘extremely grateful to the UK’” and
that he did not raise an “official grievance” at the time of the incidents
which led to the soldier bringing a race discrimination claim against the MoD.
It said that he had attempted to join the Intelligence Corps on three
occasions, and that he “accepted that his first application had failed on the
grounds that he had not been a British citizen for at least 10 years. According
to his statement, he accepted that a second application was knocked back
because he had not taken a Russian language exam.” The article then stated that
the complainant believed that a lower grade on the Russian language exam had
been “reverse engineered”.
5. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same form.
6. The complainant, the man who brought the claim against
the Ministry of Defence, said that the article was inaccurate in breach of
Clause 1. He said that he had not sued the Ministry of Defence due to “spy
fears”, and said that this was not referred to in his claim. It was also
inaccurate for the article to attribute this claim to a “witness statement” he
had made; he said that, instead, the claim was taken from interview notes
between him and a superior which was included in the tribunal bundle – the accuracy
of which he disputed. He noted that there were multiple tribunal bundles, and
that what the newspaper had described as a witness statement had not come from
his bundle, which he had provided to the reporter and which he considered to be
the fullest and most accurate tribunal bundle.
He also said that it had not been heard at his tribunal that his family
had “come [to the UK] from Russia seeking asylum from the KGB”; rather, this
reference came from a single historic newspaper article which was included in
the respondent’s tribunal bundle and which had not been referred to verbally
during court proceedings at the time of the article’s publication. As such, he
said it was inaccurate to include this information in a report of the tribunal.
He then noted that, at the time of his family’s emigration to the UK, the KGB
no longer existed. He said that the publication had a copy of his original
complaint against the Ministry of Defence as well as his tribunal witness
statement, which was included in his tribunal bundle, so it was aware the
alleged inaccuracies were not heard at the tribunal.
7. The complainant went on to identify what he considered to
be further inaccuracies in the article in breach of Clause 1. He first said
that it had not been heard at the tribunal that he was “extremely grateful to
the UK” and that this was why he had sought to join the army. He then noted
that he had raised a grievance against the Ministry of Defence at the time of
the original alleged discrimination, in the form of a handwritten letter of
complaint which the publication had in their possession; it was therefore
inaccurate for the article to state that he had raised no “official grievance”
at the time of the original incidents. He also said that, contrary to what the
article reported, he did not accept the reasoning behind his two failed
applications to join the Intelligence Corps, as he considered his applications
had been rejected due to racial discrimination. He had also not said that the
low grades on his exams had been “reverse engineered”; this was a term used by
the Ministry of Defence. He then said that the article was inaccurate as it
omitted what he considered to be a central part of his claim, which was the
fact that dishonourable discharge documentation remained on his military record
and which he considered included hate speech against him.
8. The complainant also said that the article breached
Clause 2 and Clause 14, as it contained what he considered to be private and
confidential information about the circumstances of his family’s emigration to
the UK which he said was not heard at the tribunal. He said that an historic
local newspaper article, which referred to his family background, had been
included in the Ministry of Defence’s tribunal bundle, but said that the judge
had not referred to it during the tribunal at the time of the article’s
publication and it therefore remained private information. He noted that the
local newspaper article was no longer accessible online, therefore the information
it contained could not be said to be in the public domain.
9. The newspaper said it did not accept that the Editors’
Code had been breached. It first said that the article was a fair and accurate
contemporaneous report of then-ongoing tribunal proceedings. It noted that
newspapers are required to accurately report what is heard in court and the
content of documents submitted as a part of court proceedings; they are not
required to independently investigate claims and allegations made during proceedings
or in court documents.
10. The newspaper said that a news agency reporter had
attended the tribunal and provided copy to the publication, and that the
reporter had confirmed that the complainant’s witness statement had stated that
the complainant believed he had been rejected from the Intelligence Corps due
to concerns that he may engage in espionage. It was unable to provide a copy of
the witness statement, as the reporter had only been allowed to view the
witness statement and take notes – as was usual in such proceedings. It did,
however, provide the first version of the copy from the reporter, which it said
served as contemporaneous notes of the tribunal and which included a reference
to “spy fears.” It said that the quote in the article was taken directly from
the complainant’s tribunal witness statement.
11. The newspaper said that it understood that the
complainant had submitted several witness statements which were contradictory,
but considered that where one witness statement contained a direct reference to
concerns that the complainant’s application had been rejected over “fears he
might become a Russian spy” it was entitled to report this. It did not dispute
that there were multiple tribunal bundles; however, it said that the reporter was
working from the respondent’s tribunal bundle, which was the designated
tribunal bundle.
12. The newspaper also provided a copy of the tribunal
judgment, which noted that the complainant had been informed during his time in
the army that he “may have difficulty obtaining DV (Developed Vetting) status
due to familial links” and that this also applied to Enhanced Vetting (EV),
which the tribunal described as “a more searching investigation of background
and personal life for those at risk of espionage with access to secrets.” A
letter referring to the complainant and referred to in the judgment had also
stated that he would be “highly unlikely” to gain EV status and that he was
rejected a third time as he was unlikely to gain this level of security
clearance. The newspaper said, therefore, that taking the notes and the
tribunal judgment into account, there was sufficient basis for the headline and
article to state that the complainant sued the MoD over “spy fears”.
13. The newspaper went on to address further points of
alleged inaccuracy identified by the complainant. It said that the claim regarding
the complainant ”accepting” the reasons why his first two applications had
failed was taken directly from the witness statement which the reporter had had
access to during the tribunal. It said that this was also true of the claim
that the complainant said his low exam grade was “reverse engineered”, and the
publication also noted that it was clear that the complainant believed that his
exam score had been rigged or the results falsified in some way. It noted that
a fair and accurate report of proceedings does not become inaccurate due to
omission of certain details. It said this was the case with the omission of any
reference to the dishonourable discharge documentation; it accepted that the
complainant had referred to this during proceedings, but noted that many issues
had been raised by the complainant and the documentation did not form a crux of
the claim nor was it something he could be compensated for. As such, it did not
consider that it was inaccurate for the report to omit this detail.
14. Regarding the complainant’s concern that Clause 1 and 2
had been breached by the publication of information about the complainant’s
family background, it noted that this information was included in the published
judgment and therefore entered the public domain shortly after the article’s
publication. It also noted that the tribunal judge had referred to the original
newspaper article in the tribunal judgment.
15. The publication said that the terms of Clause 14 relate
to the moral obligation of journalists to protect confidential sources of
information. As the complainant was not acting in this capacity for the
newspaper, this Clause was not engaged.
16. While the publication did not accept that the Code had
been breached, it offered to amend the online version of the article to remove
all references to “spy fears”, espionage, and the KGB as a gesture of goodwill,
should that resolve the complainant’s complaint. It also offered to publish an
update of the tribunal proceedings, should that resolve the complaint.
17. The complainant said that only one witness statement was
provided to the tribunal, and it was the same one which he had previously
provided to the publication; the quote had instead been taken from notes of an
interview with his superior while he was in the army, the accuracy of which he
disputed. The complainant did not dispute that the interview notes had appeared
in a tribunal bundle, but he said that it was inaccurate to refer to them as a
witness statement. He noted that the tribunal judgment referred to his witness
statement, not statements, and that this demonstrated that there were not
multiple witness statements. He also noted that the tribunal judgment, which
the publication relied upon in response to his complaint for breach of privacy,
had been published after the article and that a reporter had not been present
when he was questioned in relation to the local newspaper article.
18. The publication, notwithstanding that it still did not
accept that the Code had been breached, offered to amend the online version of
the article to put the complainant’s position on the record. It proposed to add
the following wording to the article:
UPDATE: Mr Steshov, a Russian born national, has asked us to
make clear that his claims against the Ministry of Defence did not directly
reference 'spy fears' and were for race discrimination, harassment related to
race and victimisation related to race. Mr Steshov's claims were rejected by
the Employment Tribunal.
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.
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.
Clause 14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential
sources of information.
Findings of the Committee
19. It was not the role of the Committee to make a finding
on the accuracy of what was heard by the tribunal, or submitted as part of the
tribunal bundle. Rather, it was the role of the Committee to find whether the
Editors’ Code of Practice had been breached. This required the Committee to
make a determination as to: whether the publication had taken care not to
publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information; and whether the
article included a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement, or distortion
in need of correction.
20. The Committee first turned to the complainant’s
complaint that it was inaccurate to report that he had brought the employment
claim over “spy fears” and that this claim had been included in his witness
statement. The Committee noted that it
was not in dispute that a document included in the tribunal bundle had recorded
that the complainant had expressed concerns that his application to join the
Intelligence Corps had been unsuccessful because of suspicions that he may engage
in espionage. The Committee understood that the complainant challenged the
accuracy of this document and that there was a dispute between the complainant
and the publication as to the nature of this document: the article described it
as a statement submitted to the tribunal by the complainant, while the
complainant’s position was that the document was a note of an interview between
him and a superior. The question for the Committee was whether the publication
was able to demonstrate that, in reporting the basis of the complainant’s
employment claim, it had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or
distorted information, and whether it amounted to a significant inaccuracy
which required correction.
21. The Committee acknowledged the difficulties faced by the
publication in demonstrating that it had taken care; it was unable to provide a
copy of the document from the hearing bundle on which it relied due to the
court’s prohibition on the removal of documents from the courtroom. The publication
had, however, provided the reporter’s original copy which it said acted as
contemporaneous notes. The copy included the quote which had been included in
the article, which the reporter said had been transcribed directly from the
document, and which was described in the copy as the complainant’s witness
statement. The reporter’s notes of the hearing also recorded that the
complainant had expressed concerns that he had not felt trusted because he had
been born in Russia. Given that the publication was not able to provide a copy
of the document from the tribunal bundle which it said included the claim, the
Committee accepted that the reporter’s original copy and the notes of the
hearing taken by him demonstrated that, in publishing the claim, the publication
had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.
There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
22. The Committee then considered whether the publication
had published a significant inaccuracy in reporting that the complainant had
sued the Ministry of Defence over ‘spy fears’ and that this claim had been
included in a statement submitted to the tribunal by the complainant. The complainant denied that this formed part
of his claim before the tribunal and said that his witness statement had not
included the quote which appeared in the article. The publication maintained
that this had been part of the complainant’s claim and that the quote had been
taken from one of the complainant’s witness statements. The Committee noted that, in the witness
statement which the complainant accepted that he had submitted to the tribunal,
he had said that "I knew the Intelligence Corps did not trust me because
of my national origin". The tribunal judgment also noted the claimant's
position that, because he was Russian, he would not have passed developed
vetting or enhanced vetting. However,
without the benefit of being able to consider the document upon which the
publication relied and which it could not provide for the reason set out above,
the Committee was unable to reach a finding under Clause 1 (ii) of the Editors’
Code of Practice on this point. Nevertheless, the Committee noted that the
article made clear that the complainant was seeking compensation on the ground
of racial discrimination, which was not disputed.
23. It was not in dispute that a document contained in the
tribunal bundle included an account of the complainant’s family’s emigration to
the UK. Therefore, it was not inaccurate to include this information in a
report of the tribunal proceedings, despite the fact that the complainant
disputed the account. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on this point.
24. The Committee considered the further alleged breaches of
Clause 1 identified by the complainant. It noted that a witness statement, which the complainant
provided to both IPSO and the publication, made reference to him wanting to
join the army as he was grateful to the UK; it was not inaccurate for the article
to report this. While the Committee understood that the complainant had raised
a grievance against the MoD at the time of the original incidents of alleged
discrimination, according to the tribunal judgment, this grievance had been
dealt with by letter and in a meeting with a superior; it had not been
investigated in line with what appeared to be official grievance procedures.
The publication therefore was entitled to characterise this as the complainant
not raising an “official grievance” at the time of the original incidents. It
was not inaccurate for the publication to report that the complainant
“accepted” the original reasons given for his first two unsuccessful
applications to the Intelligence Corps, where the witness statement indicated
that he did not challenge them and the tribunal judgment also indicated that he
did not dispute them at the time. The Committee also found that, regardless of
whether the complainant had used the specific term “reverse engineered” in
reference to his low exam score, it was not in dispute that he believed that
the testing centre had acted improperly in assessing his test and had lowered
his scores; it was not inaccurate to characterise this as a claim that the
scores were “reverse engineered” and doing so did not raise a breach of Clause
1.
25. Finally, the Committee considered whether it was
inaccurate for the article to omit the fact that the complainant had referred
to dishonourable discharge documentation being left on his file in his
employment claim. The claim comprised of numerous grievances, and the decision
as to which to cover in the article was a matter of editorial discretion for
the publication, provided that the Editors’ Code was not breached. The basis
for the complainant's claim and the remedies which he had sought were made
clear in the article, with it reporting that the complainant was “trying to
claim a loss of earnings from the MoD, claiming that he left prematurely
because of racial discrimination. He also wants compensation for personal
injury and injury to feelings, for his exam grade to be removed from records,
and for the tribunal to recommend that the MoD ‘take action to reduce the
likelihood of continuing discriminatory conduct’”. For these reasons, the
Committee did not consider that omitting information about the claim concerning
dishonourable discharge documentation rendered the article inaccurate,
misleading or distorted.
26. The Committee next considered the question of whether
Clause 2 had been breached by the publication of information about the
complainant’s family’s emigration to the UK. It noted that Clause 2 (ii) makes
specific reference to the extent to which the material complained about is
already in the public domain or will become so. Neither party disputed that the
information complained about had been included in the tribunal bundle to which
journalists had been given access, and had previously entered the public domain
via a local newspaper article published in 2001. Where the information had
previously been published in a newspaper article and had been included in a
tribunal bundle which was made available to journalists, the Committee was
satisfied that the publication had not intruded into the complainant’s private
life by publishing the information. There was no breach of Clause 2.
27. Clause 14 relates
to the moral obligation journalists have to protect confidential sources of
information. The complainant did not act as a confidential source of
information, and as such the terms of Clause 14 were not engaged, and there was
no possible breach of this Clause.
Conclusions
28. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
29. N/A
Date complaint received: 06/10/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 07/07/2021
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.