00389-25 Morgan v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Ceri Morgan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Streeting faces court for refusal to ban children's sex-change drug”, published on 31 January 2025.

2. The article, which appeared on page 8 of the newspaper, opened by reporting: “The Health Secretary is facing a court action to make him prohibit sex-change drugs for children, in line with an existing ban on puberty blockers. Lawyers acting for victims of sex-change drugs and their families are applying for a judicial review against Wes Streeting’s decision not to ban cross-sex hormones immediately”.

3. It went on to report: “The legal fight is led by Keira Bell, a de-transitioner who regretted trans surgery. She won a landmark case in 2020 against the Tavistock Clinic, where she was prescribed puberty blockers as a young teenager.”

4. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline: “Extend child puberty blocker ban to sex change hormones, Wes Streeting told”.

5. The online article also included an image of Keira Bell, standing outside the High Court, and speaking into a number of microphones. The image was captioned: “Keira Bell in 2020 after she won her landmark legal case against the Tavistock Clinic”.

6. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to report that Keira Bell “won a landmark case in 2020 against the Tavistock Clinic”. They said that the article omitted to report that this was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2021, as the Court of Appeal ruled that the High Court should have dismissed the case in the first instance.

7. On 5 February, IPSO made the newspaper aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. On 7 February, in response to the complaint, the publication amended the disputed reference in the text of the online article to read: “She brought a landmark case in 2020 against the Tavistock Clinic, where she was prescribed puberty blockers as a young teenager”. It also added a footnote correction to the online article, which read:

“A previous version of this article stated that Keira Bell won her case against the Tavistock Clinic. Whilst Keira Bell won her case in the High Court, the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal. We are happy to correct the record.”

8. On the same day, it published a correction in its online corrections and clarifications column. This read:

“An article ‘Extend child puberty blocker ban to sex change hormones, Wes Streeting told’ (Jan, 31) reported that Keira Bell won a case in 2020 against the Tavistock Clinic. Although she won in the High Court, the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal. We are happy to correct the record.”

9. Finally, the publication published a correction in print, in its corrections and clarifications column on page 2 of the newspaper, on 10 February:

“An article ‘Streeting faces court for refusal to ban children’s sex-change drug’ (Jan, 31) reported that Keira Bell won a case in 2020 against the Tavistock Clinic. Although she won in the High Court, the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal. We are happy to correct the record.”

10. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It disputed that omitting that the decision had been overturned on appeal rendered the article significantly inaccurate. It said that the article reported on an entirely separate court action, a judicial review into whether the Health Secretary could prohibit sex change drugs in line with the existing ban on puberty blockers, and it provided short context about Keira Bell as she was bringing this case – it did not consider that the omission of the ultimate outcome of her legal action had any material effect on the article; rather, it said it constituted “a small element of colour in a far longer piece”.

11. Further, it said that the statement was factually accurate – Keira Bell did win her case at the High Court in 2020 – and in any event, it had already been corrected.

12. The publication noted that the disputed statement still appeared in the online article, in the form of the image caption. It said that this had not been amended because it was an “accurate description of the photograph” depicting Keira Bell outside the High Court after winning her case – and that the article now made clear the result was overturned, which would be seen by readers.

13. In response, the complainant stated that the outcome of the appeal was not a minor detail, and was significant to the article as a whole. They said that Keira Bell’s case addressed the same legal questions as the upcoming judicial review - namely what form of transgender healthcare is appropriate for children, and whether children can give legal consent to such healthcare – and the case was therefore an important legal precedent in the context of the article.

14. The complainant also maintained that the omission rendered the article significantly inaccurate as it gave the reader a false impression of the legal merits of Keira Bell’s case.

Relevant Clause 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

15. The article had reported, both in the text and the image caption of the online copy, that Keira Bell had “won” a landmark case in 2020 against the Tavistock Clinic. The publication had not disputed the complainant’s contention that the decision of the High Court had later been overturned by the Court of Appeal. The Committee considered, therefore, whether the article was inaccurate or misleading to say the case had been “won”.

16. The Committee noted that the article did not distinguish what stage of the legal proceedings was being referred to – it did not report that Keira Bell had “won” her case in the High Court specifically; just that she had “won” her case. In the Committee’s view, this was inaccurate and misleading - given that the High Court decision had been overturned by the Court of Appeal, the Committee did not consider that Keira Bell had “won her landmark case”, as had been reported. Further, it noted that this was information which would have been available to the newspaper at the time, given that the outcome of court proceedings are a matter of public record.

17. In light of this, the Committee considered that the publication of the disputed extract – in both the text of the article and the online image caption - constituted a failure to take care on the part of the publication. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

18. The Committee then turned to the significance of the inaccuracy. The publication had contended that the omission was not significant – and that the reference merely provided a “small element of colour”, supplying context regarding Keira Bell bringing the case relevant to the article.

19. The Committee noted this position. However, it had regard for the context of the article, which reported on a court action attempting to force the Health Secretary to prohibit sex-change drugs for children. The Committee considered this similar to the substance of the disputed inaccuracy, and the publication had not disputed the complainant’s argument that the two cases both concerned the appropriateness of transgender healthcare and the giving of legal consent by children in relation to this. The Committee also noted that, to ensure the transparency of the justice system, there is an inherent importance on accurately reporting on the outcome of legal proceedings. In light of these factors, the inaccuracy was significant, and required correction as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

20. The publication had published corrections in print on 10 February, and online on 7 February. Where the former appeared five days after IPSO made the publication aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code – and the latter appeared two days after the publication had been made aware – the Committee was satisfied that the corrections were published promptly. Further, the Committee was satisfied that the corrections sufficiently corrected the record – they identified that the newspaper had inaccurately reported that Keira Bell “won” a case in 2020 against the Tavistock Clinic and also made clear the correct position: “Although she won in the High Court, the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal”.

21. The Committee then turned to the prominence of the corrections. The publication had published a correction in print on page 2, in its corrections and clarifications column. The Committee recognised that, not only was this the standard position readers would expect a correction to appear, but it was also further forward in the newspaper than the original inaccuracy – the Committee generally requires that corrections appear on the same page, or further forward, than where inaccurate information was first printed. It was satisfied, therefore, that this represented due prominence.

22. Regarding the online article, the publication had removed the disputed reference from the text of the article, and published a footnote correction – it had not amended the image caption, however. While the inaccurate reference still appeared, the Committee noted that it would be read alongside the remainder of the article, which now made clear the correct position. It also recognised that, as well as the footnote correction, the publication had run a standalone correction in its online clarifications and corrections column. For these reason, it considered that the publication’s actions had corrected the matter with due prominence in respect of the online article. The publication had satisfied the requirements of Clause 1 (ii), and there was no further breach in respect of either version of the article.

Conclusions

23. The complaint was partly upheld.

Remedial action required

24. The published corrections put the correct position on record and were offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 01/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/05/2025