Resolution Statement – 01410-25 Patrick and Lucy Jess v The Courier

Summary of Complaint

1. Patrick and Lucy Jess complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Courier breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Fife parents criticised for campaign to ban teacher”, published on 26 March 2025.

2. The article featured the sub-headline: “Petition aims to stop return of school head who stood by sex offender husband”. It then opened by reporting: “A campaign by parents to stop a Fife head teacher [Lucy Jess, the complainant] from returning to her job after she supported her husband following his sex attack conviction has come under fire from the education chief.”

3. The article subsequently reported that “hundreds of locals hit out at the plans” to welcome Mrs Jess back into her role as a head teacher and that the petition had received “nearly 400 signatures”.

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline: “EXCLUSIVE: Council chief criticises Fife parents’ bid to stop head teacher returning after husband’s sex attack conviction”. The online article also reported that: “hundreds of locals have now hit out at the plans”.

5. The online copy of the article also included a statement, attributed to a parent who was referred to as having “launched” the petition, which included the following: “We started the petition because we received the email saying the head teacher would be returning to school.”

6. The complainants said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 for a number of reasons. Firstly, they said that, as the petition was shared widely via social media and by at least one Facebook page with a national reach, it could not be evidenced that the respondents to the petition were “locals”. The complainants also noted that the petition had subsequently been removed by change.org for breaching community guidelines.

7. Further, the complainants disputed that the petition had been launched in response to an email saying Mrs Jess was returning to the school, as reported. They stated that parents had already been informed of this, via a previous letter from Fife Council – they considered that the petition was, in fact, launched in response to previous reporting done by the publication.

8. The complainants also complained that the article suggested that supporting her husband “somehow compromise[d]” Mrs Jess’ ability to perform in her role. The complainants said that Mr Jess’ offences did not relate to children, in no way involved Mrs Jess, and that Mrs Jess had been open with her professional regulator.

9. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

10. The publication denied a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said that it could not be aware, for certain, what had prompted the actions of third parties, and it did not have insight as to the precise motivations for the petition. It also noted that the reported statement as to what had prompted the petition was clearly distinguished as the view of a parent, which the parent was entitled to hold. It accepted, however, that the petition had been reviewed at the behest of Mrs Jess and subsequently removed, and therefore it could not directly scrutinise the local ties of those who signed the petition.

11. Notwithstanding this, the publication said that, overall, it considered the article to be an accurate account of events following Mr Jess’ conviction, and disputed that the article alleged Mrs Jess was involved in any criminal activity herself.

12. It also set out that it considered there to be a clear public interest in its reporting.

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.

Mediated Outcome

13. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, the complainants requested that the publication remove the phrase: “hundreds of locals have now hit out at the plans” from the online article. They also requested that the article be amended to address that, in their view, it could not be evidenced that the petition’s signatories were from the local community, and that the petition had been removed.

14. The publication agreed to the former request, and proposed to add the following wording to the article in response to the latter:

“The petition was shared on a national Facebook page so the signatories could not be evidenced as belonging to the local community. At the behest of Lucy Jess, the petition was reviewed and taken down by change.org.”

15. The complainants said that this would resolve the matter to their satisfaction, and on 8 July, the publication amended the online article as set out above.

16. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 26/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 10/07/2025