00910-25 Hilson v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Daniel Hilson 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 “Quarter of sex crimes carried out by foreigners”, published on 11 March 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page 12 - reported on the nationality of people who had been convicted of sex crimes in England and Wales. The sub-headline of the article read: “Overseas nationals are 71pc more likely than Britons to be responsible, says first data analysis of its kind”. It reported:

“Foreigners are convicted of up to a quarter of sex crimes, according to the first data analysis of its kind. Figures from the Ministry of Justice, obtained under freedom of information laws, show that 15 per cent of sexual offences, including rape, were accounted for by foreign nationals between 2021 and 2023. A further eight per cent of convictions were recorded as unknown nationalities. Those labelled ‘unknown’ are likely to largely include non-British nationals, taking the total number likely to have been committed by foreigners up to 23 per cent. This is despite census data showing foreign nationals make up just 9.3 per cent of the population”.

3. It also said:

“Immigration experts said a large number of those with ‘unknown’ nationalities were likely be foreign nationals who have a smaller footprint on existing ID systems, or were charged remotely and will be more reluctant to provide information that could affect their immigration status. The data place Albanians at the top of the nationality crime league table by conviction rate. [Named individual], the research director at the Centre for Migration Control, said: ‘These figures lay bare the cost of mass migration’.” [sic].

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline “Foreigners convicted of nearly a quarter of sex crimes”.

5. The complainant said the headline and text of the article were misleading, as they stated that a quarter of sex crimes were committed by foreigners. The complainant said the basis for the claim, as set out in the article, was that 15% of such crimes were recorded as having been committed by foreigners and 8% were committed by persons of unknown nationalities. The complainant said it was not reasonable to assume that the 8% whose nationality was not recorded were foreign nationals. He said the article did not make sufficiently clear that the percentage of crimes 'likely to have been committed' by foreigners was based on an assumption made by the publication that these individuals would be foreign nationals.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the article and headline caveated the use of the term “quarter“ by using terms such as “nearly a quarter“ and “up to a quarter“. It said the article explained how the “nearly a quarter“ figure had been calculated, and made clear this included people with “unknown nationalities“. The publication said that the article further explained that “[t]hose labelled unknown are likely to largely include non-British nationals taking the total number likely to have been committed by foreigners up to 23 per cent”, which made clear to the reader this was a likely scenario, not an absolute. The publication said it was reasonable to assume that the category was more likely to include foreign nationals than those who would place themselves in the white British category. The publication said that the article also explained why it had taken this view: "Immigration experts said a large number of those with ‘unknown’ nationalities were likely be foreign nationals who have a smaller footprint on existing ID systems, or were charged remotely and will be more reluctant to provide information that could affect their immigration status."

7. The complainant said the publication had conflated the terms “nearly a quarter“ and “up to a quarter“ and presented them as if they were synonymous. He said the phrases had significantly different meanings and were not interchangeable. He said the meaning of “up to a quarter“ is anywhere between 0% and 25%. He said therefore “nearly a quarter' was inaccurate and gave a misleading impression of the level of certainty of the estimate. The complainant also said that the print headline did not caveat its claims about the percentage of crimes committed by foreign nationals with the terms “nearly“ and “up to“.

8. The complainant also said that the statements made by “immigration experts” in the article did not reference any empirical data about the makeup of the unknown category. The complainant said the article had not named any of the experts who made the comments and therefore didn’t allow readers to assess the legitimacy of the experts and their comments.

9. Regarding the print headline, the publication said it could not be taken in isolation and that the standfirst and opening paragraph qualified the reported “quarter” by reporting: "Overseas nationals are 71pc more likely..." and "Foreigners are convicted of up to a quarter...", respectively. The publication said headlines cannot be expected to capture every matter contained in an article. Furthermore, it said, if the unknown nationalities category were all foreign nationals, then the reference to a quarter would be correct – and this was not something the complainant could disprove.

10. The publication said there was no requirement to identify experts in its reporting; it said it was not a specialist publication, and the article was a news report which had a limited word count. It said it was a summary of information provided to the reporter and framed as the expert’s comments. The publication confirmed however that the experts referenced in the article were: the Director of the Public Safety Foundation; and the Founder and Chief Executive of the Centre for Migration Control (CMC). It said both individuals were qualified to comment on the data.

11. The publication provided the Centre for Migration Control report it had relied upon for its reporting, as well as the FOI request response from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). The FOI request said: “Please exercise caution in the use of this data. It has been sourced from the Ministry of Justice extract of the Police National Computer (PNC). It is possible for an offender to have multiple nationalities listed on the PNC. Nationality provided here refers to their primary (first) nationality as recorded by the police on the MoJ extract of the police national computer”. It also said: “It is also possible for an offender to be counted multiple times, if they have sentencing occasions in more than one year, or more than one occasion in a year. For these reasons, these data are not considered a suitable source for further categorising offender nationality.”

12. The complainant pointed out that, when sharing the data, the MoJ said “Please exercise caution in the use of this data”. He also said the FOI response said: “For these reasons, these data are not considered a suitable source for further categorising offender nationality.” He said the publication had ignored this advice and used the data as a source for categorising offender nationality. He said the FOI response said: “Nationality provided here refers to their primary (first) nationality as recorded by the police on the MoJ extract of the police national computer.” The complainant said the analysis in the article presented the offenders with a non-UK primary nationality recorded in the MoJ data as foreign national offenders. He said it was clear from the FOI response that these may be dual nationals, with a secondary UK nationality. The complainant said it was not reasonable to characterise dual nationals as “foreign offenders” or “foreigners”.

13. The complainant said the article had presented the data about the absolute number of convictions committed by foreign nationals. However, the FOI response stated: “It is also possible for an offender to be counted multiple times, if they have sentencing occasions in more than one year, or more than one occasion in a year.” He said, therefore, all of the absolute figures in the article were likely to be significant overestimates of the true figures, as it was probable that individual foreign national offenders had been counted more than once in the data. He said the article had omitted to mention these important caveats.

14. The complainant also said that the UK population figures used by the CMC to calculate the percentage figures of crimes committed by offenders of various foreign nationalities as a proportion of the UK population were taken from an Office for National Statistics (ONS) dataset: "Population of the UK by country of birth and nationality: year ending June 2021.' He said the ONS website stated: “The Annual Population Survey (APS) is a household survey and so does not cover most people living in communal establishments, some NHS accommodation, or students living in halls of residence who have non-UK-resident parents.” He said as a result, the dataset was likely to understate the total size of the UK population, and therefore the percentage figures in the article were likely to overstate the proportion of convictions that could be attributed to foreign nationals.

15. The complainant said that one of the experts quoted in the article – the Founder and Chief Executive of the Centre for Migration Control – had not published any research in any academic journals, and was not recognised in academia as an expert in the fields of government statistics or criminology. He also said it did not appear he had any formal qualifications in data analysis. He said the other expert quoted in the article – the Director of the Public Safety Foundation – had extensive experience as a police officer in Australia – however, different countries classify offenders' nationalities in different ways, so this experience did not suffice.

16. The publication said it was entitled to publish the CMC analysis based on the MoJ data – which the article made clear was drawn from the Police National Computer (PNC). It said such police data could be impacted by what offenders say at the point of contact with the police, but similarly almost all national statistics involving ethnicity, age, gender are dependent on what respondents say. The publication said it was a reasonable assumption that a dual national would use their UK nationality when asked by an official what their nationality was.

17. Turning to the point about foreign nationals potentially being counted multiple times in the data, the publication said the proportion of convictions attributed to foreign nationals was derived from examining the total number of convictions from all offenders and the number of those committed by foreign nationals and working out the percentage.

18. In response to the complainant’s point about the use of the Annual Population Survey (APS) by the CMC, the publication said this data constituted estimates from the national statistical body (ONS) relating to UK population by country of birth and nationality. It did not accept that relying on this data rendered the article inaccurate.

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

19. The Committee noted that the 8% of offenders included in the “quarter” of sex crimes carried out by the reported foreigners were “unknown nationalities”. This meant it could not be known for sure whether the perpetrators were actually “foreign nationals”. Therefore, it was misleading for the print headline to report that a “quarter of sex crimes [are] carried out by foreigners”.

20. While the article made clear that “the total number likely to have been committed by foreigners [was] up to 23 per cent”, and set out how this figure had been calculated – and the assumptions that had been made in doing so – the headline went further than the article by not making clear that this was a “likely” figure, and that 23% was the highest possible figure based on the data. The headline therefore gave the misleading impression that it had been established by the data that the “quarter” figure was the definitive position – rather than the highest estimate.

21. For these reasons, the Committee considered that the publication of the print headline constituted a lack of care of the publication’s part – it had the data available, which the article clearly set out, and care had not been taken to present the headline accurately and in accordance with the data. It also considered that the headline was not supported by the text of the article, given the article did not say that the data had found that “a quarter” of such crimes were committed by foreign nationals – rather, it made clear that this figure could only be reached assuming that all individuals whose nationality was not recorded were foreign nationals. While the publication was entitled to rely upon the MoJ figures, the Committee did not consider that it had taken due care in its presentation of the data in its print headline. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

22. The Committee next considered the online headline’s use of “nearly a quarter” to describe the percentage of perpetrators who were foreign nationals and had committed sex crimes. This version of the headline also did not make clear, as noted above, that “the total number likely to have been committed by foreigners [was] up to 23 per cent”. By not making clear that 23% was the highest possible percentage based on the data, the newspaper had also failed to take care to present the online headline in a way that was not misleading, and there was a further breach of Clause 1 (i) in relation to the online headline.

The next question for the Committee was whether the “quarter” and “nearly a quarter” claim represented significantly misleading information in need of correction. The Committee noted that the accurate reporting of who has committed sex offences is a matter of clear public interest. For this reason, presenting the percentage of such offences committed by foreign nationals in a misleading manner represented significantly misleading information. As such, the headlines required correction, under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). As no such correction had been offered, this represented a further breach of Clause 1 (ii).

23. The Committee next considered the comments from what the article described as “immigration experts”. The complainant said: the comments lacked empirical data to support the claims made within them; disagreed with the experts’ opinions; and disputed the credentials of the experts. However, the Committee noted that newspapers are entitled to select which information they include in articles, provided this does not breach the Code. They are entitled to publish people’s views and opinions, provided they are distinguished as such and from fact. While the complainant disagreed with the opinions expressed, and did not consider there to be sufficient empirical data to support these views, the article clearly distinguished the comments as the experts’ view on the data, and the newspaper was entitled to report these views. It was also not inaccurate to refer to them as experts where they held senior positions in relevant organisations such as Public Safety Foundation and the CMC. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

24. In regard to the complainant’s concern that the experts had not been named, the Committee noted that the article had in fact included the name of the research director at the CMC. In any event, it noted that not naming the other commentator the article referred to was not an inaccuracy in and of itself, and that the newspaper was not obliged to name the quoted experts to ensure that the article was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

25. The complainant said the publication had ignored advice on the FOI response, advising the data was not considered a suitable source for further categorising offender nationality and that the figures in the article were likely to be significant overestimates of the true figures. The Committee noted that the FOI request had said “It is also possible for an offender to be counted multiple times, if they have sentencing occasions in more than one year, or more than one occasion in a year.” However, while the Committee noted that this may create duplicate entries of offenders on occasion, this would be consistent with all categories of offenders, and therefore the Committee did not consider this would significantly impact the ratio as reported in the article and therefore was not inaccurate. The Committee also wished to note that – provided the Code is not otherwise breached – it remains the decision of the newspaper to decide what is appropriate to publish, and – while the MoJ had requested that the data not be used in certain contexts – the newspaper was not bound by this advice, provided the Code was not otherwise breached. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 1.

26. The complainant also disputed the UK population figures used by the CMC to calculate the percentage of crimes committed by offenders of foreign nationalities as a proportion of the UK population. This was because the figures it had used - the annual population survey - did not include certain groups of people, such as individuals living in student accommodation or NHS accommodation. The Committee noted that the CMC had used a reputable statistical body – the Office for National Statistics – and its Annual Population Survey for population estimates, and the article had accurately recorded the data produced by the CMC in this respect. Where the complainant disputed the data rather than the accuracy of how this data had been recorded, it was not inaccurate. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

27. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

28. Having upheld the complaint, 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 nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

29. The Committee considered that, where the data relied upon by the publication only showed definitively that 15% “of sex crimes [are] carried out by foreigners”, and that potentially a further 8% may have been carried out by foreign nationals, it was inaccurate for the headline to claim – without qualification - that a “quarter of sex crimes [are] carried out by foreigners”. In fact, as the article set out, up to 23% of such crimes may have been carried out by foreign nationals. For the same reason, reporting in the online version of the headline that “nearly a quarter” of sex crimes were carried out by foreign nationals was misleading. Both headlines gave the misleading impression that it had been established by the figures given in the report that this was the definitive position – rather than the highest estimated figure.

30. However, the Committee noted that the article did make clear that the data did not definitively say that “a quarter” or “nearly a quarter” of such crimes were committed by foreign nationals. While the articles were not sufficient to correct the headlines, which were not supported by the text of the article, the Committee did consider that the article mitigated the effect of the misleading headlines. Therefore, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that it was inaccurate to state a quarter, or nearly a quarter, of sex crimes were carried out by foreigners. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that at least 15% and up to 23% of sex crimes were carried out by foreign nationals.

31. The Committee then considered the placement of the corrections. The print correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column, given that this is the location where readers would expect to find such corrections.

32. As the inaccuracy also appeared in the online article’s headline, the correction should appear as a standalone correction in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications column and a link should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way. In addition, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, a correction should be added to the article and published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, this correction should be published as a footnote.

33. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 10/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/07/2025