00989-25 Szendro v edp24.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Krisztina and Attila Szendro complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that edp24.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Service dog attacked in Anderson's Meadow in Norwich”, published on 7 March 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on an incident involving three dogs. It said that a “man was left ‘on his hands and knees crying’ after his service dog was attacked in a park” and that, “[t]he attack happened […] when the man […] - was out walking his service dog called [name]. After being let off the lead, [the dog] was attacked by two dogs ‘who pulled at her a lot’ and left her ‘bloody’ with an injured leg.”

3. The article said that someone “who witnessed the attack” had said: “‘They didn’t even say sorry or stop to check the dog. They just walked away.’”

4. The article included an image of the two complainants with their two dogs. Their faces were pixelated in the image. It also included a photograph of the man’s dog and her injury. It also included a photograph of the man’s dog which showed broken skin and blood.

5. The complainants, who were the owners of the dogs involved in the alleged attack, said that the article was inaccurate and one-sided in breach of Clause 1. They also expressed concern that the newspaper did not approach them for their side of the story. They said the man’s dog ran up to their two dogs and bit one on the face, and that their dog chased the man’s dog away, who appeared to have no visible injuries when running back to its owner. The complainants said that, after this, they waved to the man who waved back to confirm everything was ok. They said they didn’t walk away as claimed by the witness, and that this was illustrated by the fact that someone had been able to take their picture – which was included in the article. The complainants provided images of their dog to support their complaint; this showed that the dog appeared to have injuries on its leg and mouth.

6. In addition, the complainants said that the witness quoted in the article did not witness the incident. Later on, during IPSO’s investigation, the complainants said that the witness named in the article and the man whose dog was allegedly attacked were the same person – they provided Facebook posts which appeared to show that the witness owned the dog mentioned in the article.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It did not consider the article contained any inaccuracies, given the police had confirmed there had been an attack, the dog’s owner had confirmed it, and it had seen pictures of the dog’s injury during the interview with the reporter. It said the police spoke to the complainants about responsible dog ownership, however no criminal charges were brought. The publication said the police’s actions suggested at least some culpability on the part of the complainants.

8. The publication said it had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information by interviewing the man’s carer. They said the man who alleged his dog was injured was present during the interview. The publication provided emails from the man’s carer, dated 6 March, which showed that they had reviewed the copy and, after suggesting minor changes, were happy that it accurately represented their conversation.

9. The newspaper also said it had relied on sources in the police, who had referred to the man as a “victim”. It provided correspondence between it and Norfolk Police dated 3 April. In this correspondence, the police provided a statement that said:

“A dog incident form has now been issued to the owner of both of the boxer dogs. The form places conditions on the owner which state:

• The dogs must be kept on a lead and muzzled at all times when in a public place.

• The owner must secure and maintain the security of the garden or enclosure the dog is in

• The dog must be microchipped with up to date details recorded

• The dog can only be walked by those over the age of 16”

10. The publication also provided an email from the police’s press office, dated 5 March, which said:

“We received a report at 11.10am today (5 March) that a dog had been attacked on Anderson's Meadow, Norwich earlier in the morning. Officers are due to speak to the victim in the coming days. (For guidance rather than publication, there is no mention in the report of it being a service dog, or of any serious injury to dog or owner. An appointment was made with the victim at a time convenient to them)”.

11. The newspaper said it was unable to contact the complainants for their position as there was no way of knowing who they were prior to the publication of the article.

12. The complainants said they had contacted the police who had confirmed there were no such conditions for the dogs as set out above. They said the police admitted that the dog was not harmed or left “bloody”, and that the police had confirmed she was not a service dog.

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

13. The Committee first wished to note that its role was not to determine what happened during the altercation. Rather, its decision would be based on whether the newspaper complied with the Code when reporting on the alleged events of the day.

14. The Committee was satisfied that the newspaper had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information by contacting the police, who confirmed there had been an incident during which a dog was allegedly attacked and had referred to the man as the “victim”. The newspaper had also interviewed the man’s carer to get his first-hand perspective of the events, and had been able to provide correspondence demonstrating that such a conversation had taken place.

15. While the complainants did not accept that the dog had been injured in the manner set out in the article, the Committee noted the complainants were not in a position to dispute or know the full extent of the dog’s injuries – and that it was not in dispute that there had been some form of altercation between the three dogs. The online article had also included a photograph of the dog’s leg, which appeared to show blood; the sourcing of this image also demonstrated that care had been taken over the accuracy of the claim that the dog had been left “bloody”. As such, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information when reporting the man’s account of the incident: it had had sight of photographs which appeared to support his position, and it had contacted the police for its comment. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

16. The Committee next considered the witness’ comments that the complainants had walked away. The Committee noted that the complainants said they had waved to the man. However, it appeared that, following this, there had been no interaction between the complainants and the man, and it did not appear to be in dispute that they had not spoken to the man about what had happened. Given this, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted to report the witness’s claim that the complainants “didn’t even say sorry or stop to check the dog”, and had left after the alleged incident.

17. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concerns that the named witness was actually the dog owner, and therefore he was not an independent witness to the events that transpired. The Committee acknowledged that the complainants had provided Facebook posts which indicated that the named witness was in fact the owner of the dog. The Committee was unable to say for certain whether the named witness was the same person as the dog owner. However, the Committee was mindful of the steps the newspaper had taken, to the best of its ability, to accurately report on the incident: it had sought comment from the police; it has spoken to, and published a comment from the owner of the dog; and had published photographs of the alleged injuries. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the publication had taken the appropriate steps to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i). In addition, given it did not appear to be in dispute that the complainants had left after the alleged incident, the Committee did not consider that reporting the witness’ comments to this effect rendered the article significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted – regardless of who had said that the complainants had left, this did not materially impact on the accuracy of the article, where it was not in dispute that there had been no further interaction between the complainants and the man following the incident. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

18. Turning to the complainant’s point that the police had confirmed to them there were no conditions placed on their dogs, the Committee noted that the article had not alleged that this was the case – rather, this claim formed part of the newspaper’s pre-publication correspondence with the police, and it was the police who had made this claim, rather than the newspaper. As the article did not contain this reference, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

19. The Committee next considered the complaint that the article had inaccurately referred to the man’s dog as a “service dog”. The Committee noted that the police’s press office email said: “For guidance rather than publication, there is no mention in the report of it being a service dog, or of any serious injury to dog or owner.” In this instance, the Committee noted that the police did not confirm that it was not a service dog. Rather, they had said that there was “no mention” of this in the report made to the police. The Committee also noted that the complainants were not in a position to know the precise nature of the dog’s duties and therefore, absent of the correct position, it did not consider that there was enough information before it to find that the article was inaccurate, distorted, or misleading on this point.

20. The Committee next considered the complainants’ concerns that they were not approached for their side of the story. The Editors’ Code does not require publications to contact individuals before they publish articles – unless this is necessary in order to take care the article is accurate, or to give them the opportunity to respond to any significant inaccuracies in articles they publish. Given the article did not contain any significant inaccuracies, it was not necessary for the newspaper to contact the complainants prior to the publication of the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

21. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

22. N/A

Date complaint received: 17/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/07/2025