Decision of the Complaints Committee – 28831-20 Ross v
thejc.com
Summary of Complaint
1. Kal Ross complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that thejc.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Riverside Labour
branch secretary defies leadership with letter supporting 'emergency meeting'
on Corbyn and EHRC report”, published on 2 November 2020.
2. The online article reported the Secretary of the St
Michael’s branch of Liverpool Riverside Labour Party, Kal Ross, contacted
members urging them to support an emergency meeting following the publication
of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) into anti-Semitism with the
Labour Party and the subsequent suspension of former leader, Jeremy Corbyn MP.
The article, which included a screenshot of this correspondence, reported that
both the Secretary and Chair of the branch were themselves “supportive” of this
proposal, provided that there was “sufficient support” amongst branch members
for it. The article went on to suggest that this communication, written “on
official Labour-Party-headed paper”, appeared to “openly defy” the message from
Labour’s General Secretary David Evans to all Labour Party branches and members
that discussion of the EHRC report and its findings was “not competent
business” for meetings. The article also noted the Leader of the Labour Party,
Sir Keir Starmer MP, said that findings of the EHRC report were clear and
“leave no room for equivocation”. It reported that the publication had
approached the Labour Party for comment.
3. The online article was promoted on the publication’s
Twitter page. It was shared with the same headline “Riverside Labour branch
secretary defies leadership with letter supporting 'emergency meeting' on
Corbyn and EHRC report”. It also included an image showing the communication
shared with members of St Michael’s branch.
4. The complainant, the Secretary of the St Michael’s
branch, said that the newspaper had “failed to fully redact” his e-mail address
that, he suggested, was clearly visible at the bottom of the image. This image
appeared both within the online article and on social media, with only the
former “cropped” by the publication to remove reference to his e-mail address.
5. The complainant expressed concern that the publication of
his e-mail address and the correspondence he shared with the members of the St
Michael’s branch had intruded into his privacy, in breach of Clause 2. He said
the branch had “currently just under 500 members”, with 20 per cent of its
memberships generally not in the practice of opening party-related e-mails. He
argued that official internal party communication should not be shared outside
of the Labour Party, adding that this article represented a clear breach of
data protection regulation.
6. The complainant also said that the newspaper reported
numerous inaccuracies, in breach of Clause 1. Firstly, he said the article
reported that the communication he had shared with members was sent on “on
official Labour-Party-headed paper” when it was, in fact, an e-mail sent via
the Labour Party’s ‘Organise’ platform. Secondly, whilst he accepted that both
he and the Chair did support, in principle, the right of members to call a
meeting, he said that the article had distorted the reason for his
communication members of the St Michael’s branch: he had contacted members to
“inform them of a request for [a] lawful discussion on the EHRC report”.
Thirdly, he disputed that the meeting was in contravention of the message
issued by the General Secretary of the Labour Party, David Evans. In support of
its position, the complainant shared extracts of the e-mail shared by David
Evans to Labour Party branches:
“In accordance with the guidance previously circulated, I
would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that motions or
discussions that seek to question the competence of the EHRC to conduct the investigation
in any way, or repudiate or reject the report or any of its recommendations are
not competent business and must be ruled out of order. This is because the NEC
has a responsibility under Labour Party rule to ensure that the Party meets its
legal responsibilities, which includes responding accordingly to the EHRC’s
statutory investigation”
7. He also cited the guidance issued by the Governance and
Legal Unit of the Labour Party, which stated:
“While we have no desire to stifle legitimate debate and we
recognise that it is important for members to discuss and engage constructively
with the report and its recommendations, you must bear in mind that the country
is watching us. The way in which the Labour Party responds to this report and
deals with antisemitism is a key test of our credibility as a political party.
As part of that, it is critical that we create a safe space for our Jewish
member and begin to immediately improve our culture at all levels to ensure
something like this can never happen again. At all times CLPs, branches, and
individual members should be mindful of the language they use online to discuss
this sensitive issues as well as their obligations under the Labour Party’s
Code of Conduct: antisemitism and other forms of racism, Code of Conduct:
Social Media Policy, and Code of Conduct: Member’s Pledge. Any breach of these
codes of conduct – including in motions – will be dealt with robustly via the
Labour Party’s disciplinary processes.
8. Finally, the complainant said that the newspaper made no
attempt to contact him or the St Michael’s branch prior to publication, denying
them an opportunity to comment on the articles serious claims.
9. The publication denied any breach of Clause 2 (Privacy).
It denied that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in
relation to the communication that he shared with members of St Michael’s
branch. It added that there was a public interest in highlighting the reaction
and the response of the Labour Party and its members to the publication of the
EHRC report. It did not accept that the complainant’s e-mail address was either
visible or legible, as it had been redacted by a third-party prior to
publication.
10. The publication did not accept the article breached
Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code. It said it had been approached directly by
members of the St Michael’s branch, who each raised concerns that the
complainant was “attempting to organise a meeting in defiance” of the General
Secretary David Evans via an official party communication. It maintained that
this communication was in contravention of the terms sent to all Labour
branches by the General Secretary prior to the publication of the EHRC report.
The publication said it approached the Labour Party for comment on the story
prior to publication on more than one occasion.
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.
Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, 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.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
*The Public Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they
can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. The public interest includes,
but is not confined to:
There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
The regulator will consider the extent to which material is
already in the public domain or will become so.
Editors invoking the public interest will need to
demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication - or journalistic
activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve, and be
proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that
decision at the time
Findings of the Committee
11. At the outset, the Committee was clear that it was not its function to determine whether an individual had breached a political party’s own internal disciplinary processes or guidance, or the legality of any discussion, but rather its function was to determine whether the publication had breached the Editors’ Code.
12. The article drew a contrast between the complainant’s
action and the message conveyed by the Labour Party’s leadership in response to
the publication of the EHRC report. The article reported that the
correspondence shared by the complainant “appear[ed] to openly defy Labour
General Secretary David Evans’ message to all Labour Party branches and members
which said that discussion of the EHRC report was “not competent business” for
meetings”. However, this did not reflect the full extent of David Evans’
comments on this matter, namely: “any motions or discussions that seek to
question the competence of the EHRC to conduct the investigation in any way, or
repudiate or reject the report or any of its recommendations, are not competent
business and musty be ruled out of order”. He did not say, as the article
suggested, that all discussion of the report should be avoided, but rather
specifically that discussion seeking to question the competence of the EHRC and
reject the findings of the report should be ruled out of order. The Committee
considered that the omission of this qualifying information served to
misrepresent the message issued by David Evans to Labour Party branches and
members which had formed the basis for the article. This represented a clear
failure to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information, in
breach of Clause 1 (i). This was a significant inaccuracy that would mislead
readers, and no correction had been offered leading to a further breach of Clause
1 (ii).
13. In such circumstances, and where there was no suggestion
within the communication shared by the complainant that the proposed discussion
was to criticise the EHRC or the findings of the report, the Committee
considered that there was an insufficient basis to suggest that the
complainant’s correspondence to members did, or even “appear[ed] to”, openly
defy the Labour Party’s leadership on this matter, as suggested by the
publication. This represented a further failure to take care, in breach of
Clause 1 (i). This was deemed significant due to the position of the
complainant and nature of the allegation and as such required correction under
Clause 1 (ii). The publication had not offered to publish a correction and
there was a further breach of Clause 1(ii).
14. In regard to the other points of complaint made under
Clause 1, the Committee was satisfied that, in circumstances where the
correspondence stated that the complainant was “supportive” of the idea put
forward by members of the branch to convene an emergency meeting to discuss the
publication of the EHRC report and suspension of Jeremy Corbyn, it was not
significantly misleading for the publication to report this. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on this point. In addition, the Committee did not consider
that the article was significantly inaccurate or misleading to report that the
correspondence shared by the complainant had been written on “official Labour
Party-headed paper”, given that the Labour Party’s official branding was clearly
visible in the image of the communication included within the article and where
the complainant accepted that he issued this communication via the Labour
Party’s own ‘Organise’ platform. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
15. The Committee was clear that there is no requirement
under the Code to contact individuals prior to publication. In this instance,
the newspaper had contacted the Labour Party for comment and was reporting on a
communication, of which it was in possession, and therefore did not require
comment from the complainant as his position was made clear in this
correspondence. There was no breach of Clause 1.
16. The Committee had regard for the terms of Clause 2 (i),
which specifically reference respect for a person’s digital communications. The
question for the Committee was whether the article, in reporting the comments
made by the complainant in his correspondence to members of the St Michael’s
branch, had reported information about which the complainant had a reasonable
expectation of privacy. In the view of the Committee, this correspondence
related to a political matter in the complainant’s capacity as Secretary of the
St Michael’s branch and not an aspect of his own private life. Given that it
was circulated to 500 recipients, who were not necessarily personal associates
but rather political associates of the complainant. As such, the Committee did
not consider that this amounted to private correspondence; the complainant did
not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over this correspondence and
reporting its contents did not intrude his privacy. There was no breach of
Clause 2 on this point.
17. The Committee then considered whether the sharing of the
complainant’s e-mail address represented a breach of Clause 2. In circumstances
where the complainant was using the e-mail address to correspond on political,
not personal matters, to an audience of close to 500 recipients, who were not
friends or family, but members of his branch of the Labour Party, the Committee
did not consider that publication of this information represented a breach of
Clause 2.
18. Finally, the Committee noted that any concerns about
data protection were outside the parameters of the Editors Code and its own
remit, but rather was a matter for the Information Commissioners Office. As
such, the Committee made no ruling in reference to this aspect of the
complaint.
Conclusion
19. The complaint was upheld in part under Clause 1.
Remedial Action Required
20. Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, 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 terms and placement of
which is determined by IPSO.
21. The Committee considered that the newspaper did not take
the necessary care when reporting the message conveyed by Labour’s General
Secretary David Evans regarding the discussion of the EHRC report. This formed
the basis of the article and the claim that the complainant had openly defied
the Labour Party’s leadership. The Committee considered that the appropriate
remedy was the publication of a correction to put the correct position on
record.
22. The Committee then considered the placement of the correction.
This should appear below the headline of the online article and be published as
a separate item on the newspaper’s online homepage. This should appear for 24
hours before being archived in the usual way. The wording of this correction
should state that it was published following an upheld ruling by the
Independent Press Standards Organisation. The full wording and position of this
correction should be agreed with IPSO in advance.
Date complaint received: 03/11/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 26/05/2021
Back to ruling listingThe Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
