01477-25 Resurgam Community Development Trust v Sunday Life

Summary of Complaint

1. The Resurgam Community Development Trust complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Sunday Life breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “UFF logo flyers posted in mixed housing estate”, published on 23 March 2025.

2. The article, which appeared on page 9, reported on an incident in which sectarian leaflets were put through letterboxes in Lisburn. It reported: “UDA sources in Lisburn denied the leaflets were the work of the paramilitary gang, blaming them instead on a handful of ‘clowns’”. It went on to quote “an insider” as having said: “The UDA in Lisburn is involved in positive community work through the Resurgam Trust Charity, it isn’t intimidating anyone from their homes.”

3. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format. This version of the article was headlined “PSNI probe as UFF leaflets posted to mixed housing estate with sinister warning”, and was published on 22 March 2025.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it reported the source’s claim that the “’UDA in Lisburn is involved in positive community work through the Resurgam Trust charity”. It denied that it was currently connected or involved in any way with the UDA, a proscribed paramilitary organisation. It said that, in line with Section 75 equal opportunities legislation in Northern Ireland, the Trust had employed former prisoners from both sides of the conflict, but none of its staff were currently involved with illegal paramilitary organisations, including the UDA. It said that, by including the reference to the Trust, the article had misleadingly drawn a connection between the leaflet incident and the Trust.

5. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 3. It said that, as the Trust had no connection to the UFF leaflet incident the article reported on, the reference to the Trust was harassing towards it.

6. The publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said that it was well-established that the complainant had significant connections with the UDA. It said that, according to the Trust’s own website, it had originated from two UDA-affiliated organisations: the Loyalist Prisons’ Aid Group and the Lisburn Prisoners Support Project. It said that a report on the Trust’s own website described The Loyalist Prisoners’ Aid group as “the Welfare branch of the then legal UDA” with the “principal remit” of “look[ing] after UDA prisoners and their families”. The publication also said the Trust’s website explained that the Lisburn Prisoner’s Support Project “worked primarily with prisoners from the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF)”. It also said that the complainant’s director had previously been named in the press as a former UDA leader, and that two other individuals in leadership roles within the trust were former prisoners affiliated with the UDA.

7. The publication said the “insider” quoted was a senior member of the UDA who had been relied upon as a source by the publication on dozens of previous occasions, and who was considered by the publication to be accurate and fair.

8. The publication said that the Trust was relevant to the story as its UDA source had been keen to emphasise that the UDA was not involved in the leafleting incident, but was however involved in positive community work through other means in the community. It said that, given the Trust had published information about its history of engagement with the UDA, it had not considered it necessary to approach the Trust for comment ahead of publication.

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 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Findings of the Committee

9. The Committee carefully considered the wording of the disputed claim. The Committee noted that it was important to recognise the seriousness of the claim: according to an anonymous “insider”, the UDA – an illegal paramilitary organisation which has been proscribed since 1992 – was working with the Resurgam Community Development Trust. The Committee first wished to be clear that its role was to decide on whether, in reporting the disputed allegation, the publication had done so in a manner which did not breach the Code. Its role was not to establish whether or not the alleged current connection between the complainant and the UDA existed. It also noted that the allegation itself was clearly attributed to the anonymous source, and was not presented as a matter of fact.

10. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that, whilst the Resurgam Community Development Trust had publicly acknowledged that it employs former UDA prisoners, it had employed individuals from both sides of the conflict in compliance with Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and - at the time of the article’s publication – was not working with the UDA or knowingly employing individuals who are members of any illegal paramilitary organisations.

11. The Committee also noted the publication’s position that it had not been necessary to approach the Trust for comment, given that the Trust’s own website detailed its historic connections to the UDA and the CEO and two Board members had previous affiliations with the group. The Committee, however, considered that the publication had not given due consideration to the fact that such connections to the UDA, whilst acknowledged by the Trust, were said to be historic in nature - whereas the “insider” quoted in the article claimed such connections were current. Therefore, the allegation being made in the article was not necessarily supported by the complainant’s website, and it could not be assumed – from the website alone – that the complainant accepted having current connections to the UDA. Given this, the article did not reference the fact that the complainant disputed that it had any current links to the UDA, or that it disputed working with the organisation publication had not taken any steps to put the complainant’s position with regard to this allegation on record.

12. As such, the Committee considered that the publication had not taken care not to publish misleading information, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

13. While the article had distinguished the claim as originating from an anonymous UDA insider, the omission of the complainant’s position that it did not currently work with the UDA was significant given the serious nature of the allegation.

14. Regardless of whether the allegation itself was inaccurate or not, by not including the complainant’s rebuttal, the article gave the misleading impression that it accepted the allegation – which was not the case. Therefore, the article included significantly misleading information and required a correction. The newspaper had not offered to publish a correction in print or online setting out the complainant’s position, and therefore there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

15. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern the publication had included a reference to the Trust in the article in order to harass it. However, it also noted the complainant was an organisation and was not acting on behalf of any specific individuals. Given that the terms of Clause 3 are intended to protect individuals from harassment, rather than groups of people or organisations, there was no breach of Clause 3.

Conclusions

16. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

17. 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.

18. The Committee considered that the publication had published significantly misleading information, where it presented serious allegations about the Resurgam Community Development Trust without making clear that the organisation disputed these allegations. However, the Committee noted that the claim was distinguished as a claim made by “UDA insider” - albeit it did not make clear the accuracy of the claim was disputed by the complainant. On balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should set out the original misleading information, and acknowledge the complainant’s position – that it is not involved with the UDA and does not, to its knowledge, employ anyone who is an active member of the UDA.

19. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. As the inaccuracy had appeared on page 9, the correction should appear on page 9 of the print edition or further forward.

20. If the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction should be published as a footnote. The Committee considered this to be a duly prominent position, given the misleading information only appeared in the text of the article, rather than in the headline.

21. 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: 27/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 31/07/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.