01206-24 Matthews v Sunday World

Summary of Complaint

1. David Matthews complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Sunday World breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “FAIR CITY FUN AS 'FINZER' AND 'WEE MAC' HEAD SOUTH”, published on 17 March 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page 5 – reported on several aspects of the complainant’s lifestyle and spending habits, such as that he had: “sampled a taste of the champagne life with a pricy weekend at the five-star Westbury Hotel”, and had “just returned from a luxury holiday in Dubai”. It also referred to the complainant as an “[east] Belfast loyalist” and said that he had “splurged on a fancy weekend in Dublin while [his] pals in Belfast face[d] a criminal trial”. The article reported that the complainant and another man “were sporting their ‘Turkey teeth’ while Matthews was showing off his recent hair transplant” when dining at a bar. The article later reported that, “[s]ources in the east of the city say there is anger at the ostentatious lifestyles being flaunted on social media” and that “an East Belfast source” said “’[t]he days of flashing the cash are coming to an end’”.

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that he was sporting “Turkey teeth” and “showing off his recent hair transplant”. The complainant firstly denied that he had a hair transplant. He also stated he did not have “Turkey teeth” – he acknowledged that he had undergone a dental procedure, however he said that this was not performed in Turkey, and that it was for dental rather than cosmetic reasons. The complainant said the article also breached Clause 1 where it reported that, “[s]ources in the east of the city say there is anger at the ostentatious lifestyles being flaunted on social media”. The complainant said this was inaccurate as there were no such social media postings.

4. In addition to this, the complainant said the article breached Clause 1 as he considered it inaccurately suggested he was “splashing the cash” on cosmetic surgery and that he was living a “lavish lifestyle” that suggested impropriety on his behalf – he disputed this and said he had not acted in such a manner. The complainant also said he was not contacted prior to the publication of the article, and therefore the suppositions were not put to him directly, or his representative, which he considered to be a breach of Clause 1.

5. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2 (Privacy) as it reported that his time in Dublin was a private family trip that was not placed into the public domain either by himself or the couple his family were travelling with. In addition to this, the complainant said that any social media was restricted to a private “friends only” setting, and therefore was not for public consumption. Lastly, the complainant said the article breached Clause 2 when it referred to his teeth, as it disclosed a dental procedure which he had not publicised and over which he considered he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The complainant did not consider that publicising that he had had dental work was in the public interest, given that there were several circumstances in which a person would undergo this procedure, including those that were not cosmetic.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code, with regards to Clause 1 where the article reported that “[t]he lads were sporting their ‘Turkey teeth’ while Matthews was showing off his recent hair transplant”. The publication noted that it had published an article in 2023, headlined “David ‘spent £20k on his new looks’”, outlining the treatment the complainant had undergone for his hair and his teeth: “a source ha[d] claimed” that “[the complainant] ha[d] splashed a fortune on a hair transplant, Turkey teeth and face implants”; "The Sunday World underst[ood] [the complainant] ha[d] been undergoing treatment to thicken his thinning barnet"; and that "it [wa]s thought his new teeth could have cost in the region of £10,000 with his hair transplant setting him back a similar amount".

7. The publication also acknowledged the complainant confirmed he had undergone a dental procedure – albeit for medical rather than cosmetic reasons. However, even if this was the case it did not consider it was significantly inaccurate to use the term “Turkey teeth”. The publication supported its position with a copy of an article it had published in 2019, headlined “Fake smiles of the gnasher goons”, outlining the dental work the complainant had undergone – “his mates David ‘Wee Mac’ Matthews and Lee ‘Finzer’ Finlay seem to have caught the bug too and can be seen here sporting some ‘UVF teeth’”. The publication said neither the article published in 2019 nor the article published in 2023 had been complained about in relation to the complainant’s alleged hair transplant or dental work, and considered this to be relevant as the complainant frequently complained to the publication.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1 where the article reported that “[s]ources in the east of the city say there is anger at the ostentatious lifestyles being flaunted on social media”. The publication said it used two separate sources to cross check the information it was provided with and reported what they had claimed.

9. The publication did not accept that the article inaccurately suggested the complainant was “splashing the cash” on cosmetic surgery; that there was impropriety on his part; or inferred that he was living a “lavish lifestyle” that had been funded by criminal activity. Rather, the publication said the article was a straightforward news story that did not require an elaborate reading.

10. The publication did not accept that not contacting the complainant prior to the publication of the article rendered the article inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said that the complainant’s trip to Dublin was a simple matter of fact, and that the majority of information under complaint had previously been published without resulting in any complaints. It noted that the complainant made frequent complaints, and considered that if he had not made complaints in the past, this supported its position that the article was accurate. The publication did not consider there were any significant inaccuracies within the article that required correction.

11. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2 where the article reported that “[east] Belfast loyalists splurged on a fancy weekend in Dublin while their pals in Belfast face a criminal trial”. The publication did not consider the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy while on holiday in a city of that size.

12. The publication also did not accept a breach of Clause 2 in relation to the above point, where the article reported that the complainant had “Turkey teeth”or that he had ”a recent hair transplant”. The publication did not consider the article made a reference to private medical information relating to dental work the complainant had undergone, however, it accepted that information about a procedure the complainant had completed on his teeth was included in the article. It said, in any event, the information about the complainant’s dental work was first published in 2019 and therefore was in the public domain and could not amount to an intrusion into the complainant’s private life. The publication said, “it would be apparent to anybody who meets the complainant that he has had dental work done which has had a cosmetic effect”. 13. The publication did not consider a public interest defence was required in relation to the alleged breaches of Clause 2.

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.

Clause 2 (Privacy)

 i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental 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.

Findings of the Committee

14. The Committee first considered whether the article had inaccurately reported that the complainant “was showing off his recent hair transplant”. The Committee had regard for the 2023 article which reported that “a source ha[d] claimed” that “[the complainant] ha[d] splashed a fortune on a hair transplant, Turkey teeth and face implants”; that "The Sunday World underst[ood] [the complainant] ha[d] been undergoing treatment to thicken his thinning barnet"; and that "it [wa]s thought his new teeth could have cost in the region of £10,000 with his hair transplant setting him back a similar amount". The Committee noted the claims within the 2023 article were attributed to sources and were distinguished as comment. However, the same care had not been taken in the article under complaint – which stated as fact that the complainant “was showing off his recent hair transplant”. The Committee noted that the publication had not taken any further steps to evidence the claim and the fact that the complainant had not made a complaint when a similar claim had previously been published was not sufficient evidence to justify the reporting of the claim as fact. The Committee therefore found that the article did not distinguish between conjecture, comment and fact and there was a breach of Clause 1 (iv) on this point.

15. The Committee next considered whether the article required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii), which requires the correction of significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information.

16. In considering whether the article was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted to report as fact that the complainant “was showing off his recent hair transplant” – and therefore in need of correction – the Committee had regard for the article as a whole. Given that the article focused on the complainant’s spending habits and the holidays and procedures he was alleged to have undergone, which the complainant had denied, the Committee considered that reporting this claim as a fact was significantly misleading where the article had not included the complainant’s denial. As such, a correction was required. Given that the publication did not offer a correction that put the complainant’s denial on record, there was a further breach of Clause 1 (ii).

17. The Committee next considered whether the publication had breached Clause 1 whilst reporting that the complainant had “Turkey teeth”. The Committee noted that the term “Turkey teeth” was a commonly used colloquialism for a variety of dental procedures – it did not necessarily indicate that a person had undergone dental procedures in Turkey. Where it was not in dispute that the complainant had undergone procedures on his teeth, the Committee did not consider the article was inaccurate to refer to him having “Turkey teeth”. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

18. Turning next to whether the article was inaccurate to report that sources had said there was “anger at the ostentatious lifestyles being flaunted on social media”, the Committee noted that this sentence referred to the reaction expressed by people who had seen the complainant’s social media, was attributed to “sources in the east of the city” and was clearly distinguished as such in the article. The complainant said this was inaccurate as there were no such social media postings. Where this was presented as the publication’s characterisation of the opinions expressed about the complainant’s “display of wealth”, the Committee did not consider this was inaccurate in the way suggested by the complainant. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

19. The Committee also noted that the complainant had concerns that the article breached Clause 1 by creating an inaccurate inference about his lifestyle which suggested impropriety. However, the Committee noted that the article focused on the complainant’s spending habits and did not make any reference to how this was funded. Notwithstanding the breach of Clause 1 described above, the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate in the way the complainant had suggested on this point. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

20.In addition, the Committee considered whether it was a breach of Clause 1 not to contact the complainant prior to the publication of the article. The Committee was clear that the Editors’ Code does not include a standalone requirement for publications to contact interested parties before publishing articles. In some cases, it may be necessary to contact individuals in order to take care that the article is accurate, or to give interested parties the opportunity to respond to any significant inaccuracies in published articles. Notwithstanding the breach above, which may have been avoided had the publication approached the complainant prior to the publication of the article, it did not consider that not contacting the complainant before publication was in and of itself a breach of Clause 1.

21. Turning next to the alleged breach of Clause 2, the Committee considered whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information contained in the article about his trip to Dublin. The article reported that “[the complainant] splurged on a fancy weekend in Dublin while [his] pals in Belfast face[d] a criminal trial”. The Committee had regard for the size of the city in which the trip took place and the details shared of the trip within the article – that he had spent “a pricy weekend at the five-star Westbury Hotel” with his partner. The Committee acknowledged the complainant said the trip was not within the public domain however it did not consider that the nature of the information about a holiday included in the article – the name of the city visited, and the hotel stayed at after the complainant had left – was information in respect of which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 2 on this point. 22. Lastly, the Committee considered whether the publication had breached Clause 2 when reporting that the complainant had “Turkey” teeth. The complainant said this disclosed a medical dental procedure that he had not publicised. When considering the complainant’s concerns, the Committee was mindful of the wording of the article and the level of detail used when referring to the dental procedure the complainant had undergone. The article referred only to a broad term commonly used to denote a multitude of dental procedures that change the appearance of a person’s teeth. It did not provide any detail about the actual procedure the complainant had undergone or the reasons why this had been undertaken. The Committee did not consider the terms used contained a level of detail that the complainant would have a reasonable expectation of privacy over. Given this, there was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

23.The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1 (iv) and (ii).

Remedial action required

24.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; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

25.The Committee considered the article was misleading to report that the complainant was “showing off his recent hair transplant” as a statement of fact, where this was denied by the complainant and the publication was unable to demonstrate that it was true. The Committee was mindful that the claim only appeared within a single sentence in the text of the article and formed one of several aspects of the narrative of the complainant’s spending habits rather than being the focus of the article as a whole. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge the article inaccurately reported as fact that the complainant had recently had a hair transplant, and should also put the complainant’s denial he had undergone a hair transplant procedure on record.

26.The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

27. The correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column. As the inaccuracy had appeared on page 5, the correction should appear on page 5 or further forward. 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: 18/03/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/09/2024