01613-25 Smart v The Scottish Sun

Summary of Complaint

1. Leigh Smart, acting on her own behalf and on behalf of Allan Smart Senior and Allan Smart Junior, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Scottish Sun breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ex-Hibs striker's cop nab shame”, published on 26 March 2025.

2. The article reported on the outcome of court proceedings in which Allan Smart Junior – the complainant’s husband - was a defendant, and the complainant was a witness.

3. The article appeared on page 17, and reported that the complainant’s husband “had to be carried into a van by four cops after drunken bust-up.” It also reported that the “trial heard Smart's wife Leigh kicked [her husband] before the ex-footballer manhandled” one of the witnesses. It went on to report that the complainant’s husband “smashed a window in the Dundee home with a wine bottle.” The article closed by reporting that the complainant’s husband “was found guilty of resisting arrest […and] was convicted for the window damage, and acquitted of assaulting his wife and the" witnesses. The article included one photograph of the complainant’s husband leaving court.

4. The article also appeared online under the headline “'HE WENT MENTAL' Ex-SPFL star huckled into police van by four cops after drunken bust-up with wife and pals”, published on 25 March 2025. This version of the article also reported that the complainant’s husband “had been ordered to pay £1000 compensation to the police officers he grappled with as they struggled to arrest him”.

5. The online version of the article included an additional photograph of the complainant leaving court. In addition to this, it reported that the “[c]ourt heard that there was a fracas in their friend's home which involved his own wife kicking him before Smart manhandled” one of the witnesses. It went on to report that the complainant “denied her husband attacked her and told the court she had gently kicked him because she wanted to signal it was time to leave”.

6. The online version of the article also reported that the complainant’s husband “stormed out of the couple's home before returning and hitting their front window so hard he smashed it”, and that witnesses “described how they locked Mrs Smart in their home for her own safety, while Smart paced around outside yelling: ‘F****** come out here now!’” It also said that “[t]he trial heard that [the complainant’s husband] broke a double-glazed window and smashed glass around the door by hurling a small bottle of wine at it”, and that “[h]e threw a miniature bottle and it smashed.”

7. The online version of the article then reported that the Sheriff “halted the trial briefly to tell Mrs Smart the court could offer her protection if she felt she was unable to tell the truth because she was in an abusive relationship”.

8. The article also referred to the complainant’s husband as a “retired policeman's son” and reported that he had “a history of violence and disorder, including attacking a barman, causing £3,049 damage to hotel doors and headbutting a fan during Oldham Athletic's Christmas Party in 2001.”

9. The article also reported that the complainant’s husband was found “not guilty of assaulting his wife and the [witnesses]”, but was “found […] guilty of smashing the window”. It also said he was “found guilty of struggling with PCs […] to try and avoid arrest.”

10. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. Firstly, she said it was inaccurate for the print version of the article to report that her husband was “carried” – and for the online version to state he was “huckled” – into the police van. The complainant said her husband had walked, unassisted, to the police van and the court had not heard otherwise.

11. The complainant said the online headline was inaccurate, as it reported that her husband “went mental”. She said one of the witnesses had said this during the trial, and that the evidence from this specific witness had not been accepted by the Sheriff.

12. The complainant also said it was inaccurate for the article to describe the incident as a “drunken bust up”. While she accepted that the parties involved in the incident had consumed alcohol, she did not agree that anyone was drunk. The complainant, however, did acknowledge that the Sheriff had described his “impression” of them as “a bunch of drunk people” when summarising the case.

13. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported that her husband was “found raging” outside when police arrived at the premises. She said the testimony from the police witness during the trial was that he was “perfectly calm” when the police arrived.

14. The complainant said the article inaccurately reported, in breach of Clause 1, that she had “told the court she had gently kicked [her husband] because she wanted to signal it was time to leave”. The complainant said this was not heard in court, and instead said she had “kicked out at Allan playfully” as he told a story about her.

15. The complainant also said the article was misleading to report that her husband “manhandled” one of the witnesses during the incident. She said that her husband had told the court that he put his open palm on the witness’ forehead to stop her from kicking him. The complainant did not accept that this action could be described as manhandling, and said that he was attempting to restrain the witness. She added that the article had omitted to mention that the witness had not been harmed, and that the article did not mention that the witness had kicked her husband.

16. The complainant said the print version of the article inaccurately reported that her husband had “smashed a window […] with a wine bottle”, and the article inaccurately reported that he “broke a double-glazed window and smashed glass around the door by hurling a small bottle of wine at it.” The complainant said no such accusation had been made by anyone involved in the trial. She added that the Sheriff had instructed that the “matter of the broken wine bottle be deleted from the trial”.

17. The complainant also said the article was misleading, in breach of Clause 1, as it included photographs of her and her husband leaving court while omitting photographs of the witnesses in the case. The complainant argued that, by including photographs of her and her husband in the online article, it made it appear as though they were the ‘guilty couple’ in the proceedings.

18. The complainant then said the article breached Clause 1 by reporting that she had been offered “protection” by the Sheriff “if she felt she was unable to tell the truth because she was in an abusive relationship”. She said this quote implied that it had been established by the court that she was in an abusive relationship. The complainant said this was not the case, and she had repeatedly and consistently told the police and court that this was incorrect.

19. The complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that her husband was a “retired policeman's son”, as her father-in-law was a self-employed hardware salesman.

20. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report that her husband had “a history of violence and disorder, including attacking a barman, […] and headbutting a fan during Oldham Athletic's Christmas Party in 2001.” She said no act of this nature took place at the Christmas party, nor did her husband attack a barman – rather her husband was hit in the face with a bottle by hotel staff, and had retaliated. The complainant also said the reference to her husband’s earlier convictions were unnecessary, given these convictions were spent.

21. The complainant said it was unnecessary to reference her husband’s former football professional career.

22. Finally, the complainant said the article was inaccurate as it omitted the following information: that the evidence from one of the witnesses was discredited as it was “muddled”; further evidence the complainant had provided during the trial; her husband’s evidence, during which he denied all of the allegations; and the fact there were no injuries to any of the people involved in the incident, with the exception of cuts and bruising to the heel of her husband’s palm. She said the omission of this information meant readers were left with a misleading impression of what had happened and the circumstances which led to the incident.

23. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s husband had been “carried” or “huckled” into the police van. It said that he himself had accepted that he resisted arrest and was forced into the police van. It supported its position with notes taking during court by the reporter, which said that one of the police officers giving evidence said they “[t]ook him to the marked police van”. Further to this, it said Mr Smart’s solicitor referred to him as having been “taken into the police van, legs in the air”, which was unchallenged by the police officer when giving evidence.

24. The publication did not consider that the online headline was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s husband “went mental”. It provided notes taking during the trial by the reporter, which stated that the witness had said: ”Then he went mental and started fighting with the two police officers that came up, and rolling about the ground.”

25. The publication did not consider that it was inaccurate or misleading to describe the incident as a “drunken bust up”. It provided notes taken during court to support its position on this point – “Sheriff […]: ‘This was a bunch of drunk people and things went spectacularly wrong in a spectacularly short period of time. You accepted the police acted fairly and you reacted very badly’."

26. The publication also did not consider it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had “kicked” her husband. It said the complainant, and other witnesses, accepted that a kick had taken place, and provided notes taken during court to support its position on this point – “I kicked him ‘shut up Alan’. I was a bit fed up and wanted to go.” It added that the complainant’s husband during his evidence, implied it was an angry kick and admitted it was powerful enough to cause him to 'react'. The publication did not consider it was significant in context whether the kick was 'playful' or otherwise. The publication also noted it would have been clear to the reader that there was insufficient evidence to find that the kick met the definition of a legal assault.

27. The publication disputed it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s husband had “manhandled” one of the witnesses. It said that the meaning of 'manhandled' was subjective to some extent and that, in the context of the evidence hearing during court, it saw no significant inaccuracy. It added that a reference was made in court to the complainant’s husband putting his hands on the witness, and it therefore considered that ‘manhandled’ was an acceptable term to use. It said, in any case, the article made clear he was cleared of assault.

28. The publication did not consider that it was significantly inaccurate to report that the complainant’s husband had “smashed a window in the Dundee home with a wine bottle”. It said he himself admitted he had broken the window and had been convicted of doing so. It also said that police witnesses had given evidence that they had observed smashed glass and 'red staining' on a wall accompanied by the smell of alcohol. Further to this, it provided notes from the evidence of one of the witnesses, which said that the witness had “managed to push [the complainant’s husband] towards the door. He threw a miniature bottle - one glass of wine - and it smashed.” It added that, in context, it was not significant whether the window was broken by a bottle or whether the bottle smashed in the vicinity of the window.

29. During IPSO’s investigation, sixteen weeks after first being made aware of the complaint, the publication said it would be content to publish the following in its print 'Clarifications and Corrections' spot on page 2:

“Allan Smart did not smash a window with a wine bottle, as stated by our March 26 article, ‘Ex-Hibs striker’s cop nab shame. The court heard he broke the window and separately smashed a small bottle of wine.”

30. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to include photographs of the complainant and her husband while omitting photographs of the other witnesses. It said it was normal practice to use pictures of the “dramatis personae” in a case leaving or arriving at the court building to illustrate court reports.

31. The publication did not consider it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had been offered “protection” by the Sheriff “if she felt she was unable to tell the truth because she was in an abusive relationship”. It provided an excerpt from the reporter’s court notes, which stated that:

“Sheriff […] intervened: ‘If your husband is abusive to you and you feel under pressure then I can make arrangements for you. I want to give you that opportunity.’

Leigh Smart: ‘No’." 

32. The publication accepted it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s husband was a policeman's son. However, it did not consider this represented a significant inaccuracy, as this was a passing reference that had no significance in the context of the article. However, on 15 May – one month after it was first made aware of the complaint - the publication said it would be happy to remove this reference from the online version of the article, as it did not also appear in print, and to append the following as a footnote:

“Allan Smart is not a policeman's son as an earlier version of this article incorrectly stated. It has been amended.”

33. The publication did not consider it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s husband had “a history of violence and disorder, including attacking a barman […] and headbutting a fan during Oldham Athletic's Christmas Party in 2001.” It said he had previously admitted to affray, damaging property and assault with intent to resist arrest, and noted that the report relating to this had remained online and unchallenged since 2003. It provided the news report in question; this said that the complainant’s husband was “a retired policeman’s son”, who “went on a boozy rampage in Oldham after a Christmas party”, “grabbed a barman's throat”, and “headbutted a fan who tried to calm him down”.

34. It added that the events took place after the Christmas Party, not 'at' it, however it did not consider this to represent a significant inaccuracy; it said these events, and Mr Smart Junior's resulting convictions, were mentioned in its article to illustrate his previous history of violence. It considered that whether the incidents took place 'at' or 'after' the party - and indeed the specific job or occupation of the individuals he assaulted - was trivial given the context of the article overall. It did, however, state it would be happy to amend the online article to make clear that the incident took place after the party.

35. In relation to all the other points raised by the complainant, in particular the inclusion of details about her husband’s football career and the omission of information she considered to be necessary context, the publication did not accept the inclusion or omission of this information was inaccurate or misleading in the way the complainant had suggested.

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

36. The Committee first considered whether the article inaccurately reported that the complainant’s husband had been “carried” and “huckled” into the police van. It noted that the publication had been able to provide contemporaneous court notes to support its position on this point. These said that the police officer giving evidence “[t]ook him to the marked police van”. The Committee also noted that the publication’s notes showed that Mr Smart Junior’s solicitor referred to him as having been “taken into the police van, legs in the air”, which was unchallenged by the police officer giving evidence. In such circumstances the Committee was satisfied that the publication demonstrated that article was an accurate depiction of what had been heard in court on this point. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

37. The Committee next considered whether the headline of the online version of the article inaccurately reported that the complainant’s husband “went mental”. The publication had provided notes to support its position on this point. These said that one of the witnesses had said, when giving evidence, that “[Mr Smart Junior] went mental and started fighting with the two police officers that came up, and rolling about the ground.” The Committee acknowledged the complainant may have disagreed with the witness’ recollection of the events, however, the Committee was satisfied that the headline simply reflected what had been heard in court about the incident. There was no breach of Clause 1 in relation to this point.

37. The Committee turned next to whether the article had inaccurately referred to the events that had taken place as a “drunken bust up”. Both parties accepted that the Sheriff had referred to the events in the following terms: “This was a bunch of drunk people and things went spectacularly wrong in a spectacularly short period of time.” The Committee also noted that the complainant accepted that all of those present during the incident had consumed alcohol. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that the publication had taken care to accurately report on what was heard in court, and that the article was not significantly inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

38. The Committee then considered whether the article was inaccurate to report that the complainant “told the court she had ‘gently kicked’ her husband, because she wanted to signal it was time to leave”., Both parties did not appear to dispute that a kick had taken place, and the publication had provided notes to support its position that this was heard in court. These notes also said that the complainant had said she had kicked her husband “I was a bit fed up and wanted to go”. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the article accurately reported what had been heard in court on this point. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

39. The Committee turned to whether the article was misleading to report that the complainant’s husband “manhandled” one of the witnesses during the incident. The publication had again provided notes taken during the trial: these said that both the complainant and her husband accepted that he had put his “hands on” one of the witnesses. The complainant had also said that her husband had placed his hand on the witness’s head. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to describe this action as “manhandl[ing]” – regardless of his reasons for doing so, it did not appear to be in dispute that he had touched one of the witnesses to restrain them and that this had been referenced in court. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

40. The Committee next considered whether the print version of the article was inaccurate to report that “smashed a window in the Dundee home with a wine bottle”, and whether the online version of the article inaccurately reported that he “smashed glass around the door by hurling a small bottle of wine at it.” Both parties accepted that it had not been heard in court that the window had been broken by the complainant’s husband smashing it with a wine bottle, as the print article had suggested. The Committee was mindful that the online version of the article did not report that Mr Smart Junior had broken the window with wine bottle and therefore considered that only the print version of the article was inaccurate on this point. Both parties appeared to accept that it had not been heard in court that the complainant’s husband had smashed the window with the wine bottle, and this was reflected within the notes taken by the reporter at court. In such circumstances – where the notes did not reflect what was ultimately published in the article - the publication had not taken care not to publish inaccurate information. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

41. The Committee turned next to whether this was a significant inaccuracy requiring correction under Clause 1 (ii). The Committee had regard to the article as a whole, which reported details of a trial resulting in the complainant’s husband’s conviction. In this context, the Committee considered this to be significantly inaccurate, given the inaccuracy related to the method used by the complainant’s husband to break the window – one of the offences for which he was convicted. Given this, and the importance of accurately reporting on the reasons behind a conviction, to ensure that the public are informed about the courts and the basis on which their decisions are made, the Committee considered this inaccuracy to be significant. Therefore, the significantly inaccurate information required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

42. The Committee then turned to whether the correction offered by the publication was sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii), which requires that significantly inaccurate information is corrected promptly and with due prominence.

43. The Committee noted the wording of the correction made clear that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s husband had smashed a window with a wine bottle, and put the correct position on record: that the court heard that complainant’s husband had broken the window and had separately smashed a bottle of wine.

44. The Committee next considered the prominence of the correction – the publication had offered to publish the correction in its ‘Corrections and Clarifications’ section of the newspaper. As the article had appeared on page 17 of the newspaper, the Committee considered the placement of the correction to be sufficiently prominent: the Corrections and Clarifications section in the print edition would be where readers could expect to find corrections.

45. The Committee turned next to whether the correction offered was sufficiently prompt. The correction had been offered sixteen weeks after the publication had first been made aware of the complaint. The Committee did not consider the offer to be sufficiently prompt given that it had been aware of the alleged inaccuracy for sixteen weeks. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) in relation to the promptness of the correction offered.

46. The online version of the article did not report that the complainant had smashed the window with a glass bottle. Rather, it reported that he had “smashed glass around the door by hurling a small bottle at it”. This was supported by the reporter’s notes, which said that a witness had said in court that the complainant’s husband “threw a miniature bottle - one glass of wine - and it smashed.” While the complainant had said that this had been deleted from the court record, there was nothing before the Committee which indicated that this was the case, and it noted that – at any rate – the article did not report that the complainant’s husband had been convicted in relation to allegedly throwing the bottle. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that the publication had taken due care over the accuracy of the online article on this point, and that it was not significantly inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1.

47. The Committee then considered whether the article was inaccurate to include photographs of the complainant and her husband leaving court while omitting photographs of the witnesses. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s position that she felt the inclusion of the images misled readers regarding the culpability of her and her husband. However, it noted that the selection and sourcing of material for publication was a matter of editorial discretion, provided the Code is not otherwise breached in doing so. The Committee did not consider it was inaccurate or misleading to include images of the complainant and her husband given that they were giving evidence at court, and the complainant’s husband had been convicted as a result of the trial being reported on. There was no breach of Clause 1 in such circumstances.

48. The Committee next considered whether the article was misleading to report that the Sheriff offered Mrs Smart “protection” if she felt she could not tell the truth because she was in an abusive relationship. The article accurately reported comments made by the Sheriff, in open court. The complainant did not dispute that this had been heard in court and therefore – while the Committee understood that the complainant, in strong terms, disagreed with the Sheriff’s comments – the article was not inaccurate on this point. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1.

49. The Committee noted that news coverage from 2003, which remained online and unchallenged, referred to the complainant’s husband as a “retired policeman’s son”. Where this information appeared online in the context of a news report about the complainant’s previous reporting, the Committee did not consider that repeating this claim in its own news coverage represented a lack of due care on the part of the publication. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

50. While the complainant disputed that her father-in-law was a retired policeman, the Committee did not consider that any inaccuracy on this point was significant: it was a passing reference in an article which focused on the complainant’s husband’s conviction. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

51. The complainant had said her husband had not attacked a barman, nor had he had headbutted a fan at football club Christmas party. However, the publication had been able to provide a news report of the 2003 case, which reported that the complainant’s husband had “grabbed a barman’s throat” and “headbutted a fan who tried to calm him down” after a Christmas party. Where the newspaper was able to provide contemporaneous news coverage to support its position on this point, the Committee was satisfied that it had taken care over the accuracy of the article on this point, in line with the terms of Clause (i). The Committee also did not consider that the discrepancies between the account given in the 2003 news coverage and the publication’s article – namely, whether the incident happened at or after a party – represented a potentially significant inaccuracy. Given this, there was no breach of Clause 1.

52. The Committee also considered whether the article was inaccurate to reference the complainant’s husband’s previous convictions – as they were spent - and to omit context about the convictions which the complainant considered necessary. The Committee was mindful that it was the complainant’s position that the convictions resulted from acts of retaliation, and that her husband had not been the aggressor. However, regardless of the reasons why the incidents had taken place, the newspaper was still allowed to report on them, and the Code does not prohibit newspapers from reporting on spent convictions. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

53. The Committee considered whether the article was inaccurate to include details of the complainant’s husband’s SFPL career and omit the following information: that the evidence from one of the witnesses was discredited as her evidence was “muddled”; further evidence the complainant had provided at during the trial; her husband’s evidence, during which he denied all of the allegations; and the fact there were no injuries to any of the people involved in the incident, with the exception of cuts and bruising to the heel of her husband’s palm.

54. The newspaper was entitled to focus on certain aspects of the court proceedings, and not others, provided its report was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. The Committee was mindful of the complainant’s position that this created a misleading impression of what had happened, and the circumstances which led to the incident. However, it did not consider the inclusion or omission of the above points rendered the article inaccurate. In such circumstances, there not a breach of Clause 1 in relation to these points.

Conclusions

55. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

56. 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.

57. The print version of the article had inaccurately reported that the complainant’s husband had “smashed a window in the Dundee home with a wine bottle.” The publication had offered to correct this inaccuracy, albeit it had not done so promptly. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy.

58. The Committee was satisfied with the wording and prominence of the correction, as offered by the publication. This acknowledged that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s husband had smashed the window with a wine bottle, and put the correct position on record – namely that he had broken the window and had separately smashed a bottle of wine. The correction should appear in the Corrections and Clarifications segment of the newspaper, as proposed by the publication.

59. However, the wording of the correction should have a further sentence added it making clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation – in light of the breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Date complaint received: 07/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 04/11/2025

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.