01280-24 Baillie v The Times

Decision of the Complaints Committee – 01280-24 Baillie v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Ruth Baillie complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Abortion ban for Down's after 24 weeks”, published on 21 March 2024.

2. The article reported on a proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. It opened by reporting: “MPs from all main parties have backed changes to the law that would abolish rules allowing abortions up to the point of birth for a foetus diagnosed with Down’s syndrome”. It then reported:: “An amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill being tabled by Sir Liam Fox, a former cabinet minister, would bring the law in line with the 24-week abortion limit for foetuses with no ‘serious disabilities’”.

3. The article went on to report that “Fox, a former GP and defence secretary, will argue that the current law is contradictory to the Equality Act 2010, which defines discrimination occurring when a person is treated unfairly because of a protected characteristic. Fox raised his attempt to change the law in prime minister’s questions yesterday”.

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline: “Down’s syndrome abortions to be banned after 24 weeks”. Its subheadline read: “MPs from all parties are expected to back Sir Liam Fox’s proposal to ban terminations up to birth for babies with the condition”.

5. The online version of the article also reported that “Fox’s amendment has already been backed by a string of MPs from the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Democratic Unionist Party. It will be debated and voted on as part of passage of the Criminal Justice Bill, which is expected to return to the Commons after MPs return for the Easter recess on April 15”.

6. The online version of the article also added that “[a] woman with Down’s syndrome lost a legal bid to change the law in November 2022. [A named individual], then 27, argued that the rules were discriminatory against people with the condition and the legislation ‘doesn’t respect my life’. Fox’s bid to change the law is the latest in a long campaign to boost the rights of people with Down’s syndrome”.

7. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because she believed the headline and introduction presented the proposed law change as an “already done deal”. She stated that this was inaccurate – the proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would prevent the termination of pregnancies after 24 weeks where the foetus has Down Syndrome had not yet been tabled, let alone passed. She said that misrepresenting this legal position was irresponsible, given the sensitivity of the matter.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said that the headline of the print article did no more than state the subject of the article – and that the online headline was accompanied, and should be read in conjunction with, the sub-headline, which read: “MPs from all parties are expected to back Sir Liam Fox’s proposal to ban terminations up to birth for babies with the condition”. The publication said that the online sub-headline, and the opening sentences of both versions of the article, made the correction position clear, and explained that the proposal had secured strong cross-party support.

9. The publication added that the online version of the article clearly stated when the proposal was being debated and voted on – in all, it said that no reader could be confused as to the current status of the proposed amendment, or the point it had reached in the legislative process.

10. While the publication did not accept a breach of Code, it amended the online headline as a gesture of goodwill. It was updated, on 9 April, to read: “Down’s syndrome abortions could be banned after 24 weeks”.

11. In response, the complainant maintained that the article did not support the headline – she said that there was a very clear difference between reporting that such abortions would be banned and the correct position – which was that an MP had proposed such a ban. She added that, at the point the article was published, the amendment which would lead to a ban had not even been tabled – in her view, the publication had published a headline which suggested the amendment was a “done deal”, when the proposal was only a “plan” to introduce an amendment.

12. In support of her position, she supplied IPSO with the Criminal Justice Bill Amendment Paper for 20 March – the day before the print article’s publication – and the updated version from 26 March, five days after the article’s publication. She noted that the proposed amendment was only added to the paper after the article had been published.

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 noted the importance of headlines, given their prominence and visibility, and ability to potentially mislead readers. At the same time, the Committee had regard for the fact that a headline can only ever be a summary of the information reported; it is not feasible for a headline to contain all relevant contextual information. Provided a headline is not distorted, misleading, or inaccurate, and is supported by the text of the accompanying article, summarising information in a concise manner will generally not breach the Code.

14. In this case, the print headline read: “Abortion ban for Down's after 24 weeks”. The article set out, from the outset that “MPs from all main parties have backed changes to the law that would abolish rules” and that “[a]n amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill being tabled by Sir Liam Fox…”. The Committee considered, therefore, that the article immediately made clear that the proposed amendment was not yet law. This was further reinforced throughout the article, which reported that Sir Liam Fox “will argue” that the law was contradictory to the Equality Act 2010, and that he raised his concerns “to change the law” during Prime Ministers Questions. Further, the Committee noted that, as set out in the article, the proposed legislation had been backed by “MPs from all main parties” – the complainant had not disputed the publication’s contention that, at the time of publication, the proposal was likely to be passed due to crossparty support.

15. Although the body of an article cannot be relied upon to correct an actively misleading impression given by a headline, articles should be read as a whole. Reading the headline in conjunction with the article, the Committee did not consider the headline to be an inaccurate or misleading summary of the text of the article; the article made clear the status of the proposed amendment, and that MPs from all the main parties had expressed support for the amendment. In these circumstances, and where the outcome of the proposed amendment passing would be a ban on abortions of babies with Down’s syndrome after 24 weeks, the Committee was satisfied that the article supported and clarified the headline, and that the headline was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1.

16. Secondly, the Committee considered the online headline: “Down’s syndrome abortions to be banned after 24 weeks”. This headline made clear that the proposed legislation was not actually yet law – it reported abortions were “to be banned”. As set out above, the Committee considered that the article went on to make the status of the proposed amendment clear. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the online article supported and clarified the headline, and that the headline was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1.

17. Finally, the Committee considered whether the text of the article was inaccurate or misleading in and of itself, given the fact that the amendment had not yet been tabled at the time of publication. It recognised that both versions of the article clearly reported: “an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill being tabled by Sir Liam Fox”. In light of this, and where it was not in dispute that the amendment was ultimately put forward – the complainant had supplied the amendment list for the Criminal Justice Bill which demonstrated this – the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken due care, and the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

18. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

19. N/A

Date complaint received: 23/03/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/06/2024