Resolution Statement – 29978-20 Abdelrahman v The Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Dr Maha Abdelrahman complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Cambridge lecturer ‘failed
to help investigation into student’s murder’”, published on 14 December 2020.
2. The article reported on the claims of Italian prosecutors
who ”accused a Cambridge University lecturer of lying and failing to assist
them” in their investigation into the death of a PhD candidate she was tutoring.
The article also reported that the lecturer “was unavailable for comment last
night.”
3. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same format.
4. The complainant, the lecturer and tutor of the student,
said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She said that
whilst the Italian prosecutors had made this accusation against her, the
criticism had been publicly rebutted on several occasions, and the accusations
were fundamentally untrue. She also said that it was inaccurate to report that
she had been “unavailable for comment” as the university’s press office had not
received any calls or emails asking for her comment.
5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said it made clear that the criticism of the complainant was an allegation and
did not adopt it as fact. It also noted that the allegation was heard in court.
It said that a reporter had called the complainant’s place of work in order to
get a comment, but had not been able to reach her. The publication said that it
was not a significant inaccuracy to refer to this as her being “unavailable for
comment”.
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 publish the following correction in print.
We reported on suggestions by Italian Prosecutors that
Professor Abdelrahman of Cambridge University has failed to cooperate with
their investigation into the death of student Giulio Regeni (News, 14 December
2020). Cambridge University maintains that Professor Abdelrahman has cooperated
fully with the Italian investigation, having answered questions on three
separate occasions and voluntarily providing material. We are happy to make
clear their position.
It also amended the sentence in the online article that said
the complainant was “unavailable for comment” to read “The Times was unable to
reach Dr Abdelrahman for comment" and added two updates to the article:
Update [DATE]: Cambridge University deny the prosecutors’
accusations against Professor Abdelrahman and say that she has fully
co-operated with the investigation, having answered questions on three separate
occasions and voluntarily providing material.
This article was amended on [DATE] to reflect that The Times
was unable to reach Dr Abdelrahman for comment, rather than her being unavailable,
as previously stated.
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: 18/12/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 04/02/2021
Back to ruling listing