01615-25 Smart v dailyrecord.co.uk

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 dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ex-Hibs star carried into van by four police officers after drunken bust-up at pal's home”, published on 25 March 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - 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. The subheading of the article reported that “Former Hibs and Stoke striker Allan Smart, 50, was accused of trying to punch his pal's wife.”

3. The article also reported that the complainant’s husband “had to be carried into a van by four police officers after a violent drunken bust-up with his wife and friends.” It went on to report that the court “heard that there was a fracas in their friend's home which involved his own wife kicking him before Smart manhandled” another witness. It also reported that the “trial heard that Smart broke a double-glazed window and smashed glass around the door by hurling a small bottle of wine at it. The walls were spattered with red wine when police arrived and found raging Smart outside.” In addition to this, the article reported that the complainant “told the court she had gently kicked [her husband] because she wanted to signal it was time to leave after an hour at the [witnesses’]”.

4. Further to the above, the article reported that the Sheriff presiding over the court “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.” The article also reported that the complainant’s husband, who it described as a “retired policeman's son”, had “a history of violence and disorder, including attacking a barman, causing damage to hotel doors and headbutting a fan during Oldham Athletic's Christmas Party in 2001. In March 2002 he was arrested for assaulting a police officer in a brawl outside a police station”. It added that, “[i]n March 2017, Smart pled guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm at Swindon Crown Court after he bit off the earlobe of a friend in April the previous year”.

5. The complainant said the headline inaccurately described her husband as an “ex-Hibs star”. She said he had been loaned to the team for three months, and she did not consider that his career – “two very brief spells at two SPFL clubs starting in only four games” – merited describing him as a “star”. She said this phrase had been used to stoke readers’ interest and sensationalise the story.

6. The complainant also said that the headline and sub-headline inaccurately reported, in breach of Clause 1, that her husband had been “carried into van by four police officers” and “had to be carried into a van by four police”, respectively. She said her husband had walked to the police van with the police officers of his own accord and was not carried.

7. She also said the article was inaccurate to refer to the incident as a “violent drunken bust up”, as it had not been proven that anyone involved in the incidents was either “drunk” or “violent”. While she accepted that the parties involved in the incident had consumed alcohol, she did not agree that anyone was drunk. She acknowledged, however, that the Sheriff had said his “impression” of those involved was that they were “a bunch of drunk people” when summarising the case.

8. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported that she “told the court she had gently kicked” her husband “because she wanted to signal it was time to leave after an hour”. She said this was inaccurate as she had said in court that she had "kicked out at Allan playfully” in response to a joke he had made at her expense.

9. 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 kicking him. The complainant did not accept that this could be described as “manhandling” and therefore considered the claim within the article misled readers about the circumstances of the case.

10. The complainant also said that the article inaccurately reported that her husband had been found “raging” outside; she said the testimony from the police witness during the trial was that he was “perfectly calm” when the police arrived.

11. The complainant added that she thought the article was misleading to report the ”trial heard” that her husband “broke a double-glazed window and smashed glass around the door by hurling a small bottle of wine at it.” She said that a witness had accepted, during court proceedings, that this was not true. As a result, the complainant had said that the Sheriff ordered this aspect to be removed from the charges. The complainant added the article inaccurately described the window as having been “smashed”. She said only the outer pane had been broken; the inner pane had remained intact.

12. The complainant also 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“ that this was incorrect.

13. 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.

14. The complainant also said that the article was inaccurate to refer to her husband’s previous convictions, as these were spent convictions. She added that the article omitted to mention context about these convictions, as she said they were all acts of retaliation. She added that her husband had not a “attack[ed] a barman” or “headbutted a fan at an Oldham Christmas party”. She said the latter claim led readers to believe that her husband had, without provocation, headbutted one of his own fans at a Christmas party.

15. Finally, she said the article was inaccurate as it omitted the following information: that the evidence from one of the witnesses was discredited; reference to further evidence she 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 Mr Smart Junior’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.

16. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to describe the complainant’s husband as an “Ex-Hibs star”. It said he had previously played for Hibernian Football Club, and this was therefore not an inaccurate description of him.

17. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s husband had been “carried into [a] van by four police officers”. It said this had been heard in court, and provided the following reporter’s notes taken at court to support its position:

“PC […] – ‘We took him to the marked police van. He was sat in the rear cage on the cell floor. I believe the four of us had to carry him - he was refusing to walk.’

Prosecutor Fiscal – ‘‘Do you agree you were difficult with the police?’

Allan Smart [Junior] –‘Totally fair. Fair comment. I said to them I can't get my knee bent, can you take my cuffs off from behind my back? I have had 7 knee operations, my knee didn't bend. I did resist. I had 4 boys jumping on top of me. There was a lot going on. I could have walked to the car and I could have done better’.”

18. The publication also did not accept that the article was inaccurate to refer to the incident as a “violent drunken bust up”. It said it was accepted by the complainant that alcohol had been consumed prior to the incident, and that the article reported that the Sheriff stated that his impression was that “this was a bunch of drunk people”. It added that one of the police officers who gave evidence also stated that the complainant’s husband “appeared quite under the influence of alcohol as well”.

19. The publication added that the article made clear that the "Sheriff […] had to find Smart not guilty of assaulting his wife and the [witnesses] within the house" - however, it was satisfied that it was accurate to describe the incident as "violent" generally.

20. The publication did not consider 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”. It said that, while giving evidence at court, the complainant’s husband said she had “’a swing with [her] right foot” and said that this “caught [him] between the legs”.

21. The publication also did not accept it was misleading to report that the complainant’s husband “manhandled” one of the witnesses during the incident. It said Mr Smart Junior, while giving evidence at court, had accepted that he “put his hands” on the witness. Therefore, it was satisfied the term “manhandled” was a fair and accurate description. It provided the following reporter’s notes from court to support its position:

“[witness’] evidence –‘He wasn't listening to me. He turned her head and threw her on the ground. He threw a punch at my wife, which I intercepted with my face. She was trying to stop it.’

Allan Smart [Junior’s] evidence – ‘As soon as I put my hands on his wife, he has quite rightly bundled me.’

Leigh Smart’s evidence – ‘He then put his hands out on [the witness’] head to hold her back…’”

22. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report that the police “found raging Smart outside” when they arrived. The publication said that the complainant’s husband’s behaviour was described in court by witnesses as “aggressive” and “violent”, and so it was satisfied it was accurate to describe his behaviour as “raging”. It provided the following reporter’s notes from court to support its position:

“PC […]’s evidence –

‘There was a male stood outside the property, where the front window was. I heard the male's been shouting and looked to me like he was pointing into the property. He said 'f**king come out here now' or something similar to that. I ran towards the male.

‘Just as I applied the handcuffs and moved his arm towards the rear. He started to pull away violently and lashed out to stop the second handcuff being applied. He continued to lash out and it caused us to take him to the ground. All of us [4 officers]. He was still aggressive. The accused has been flailing his arms’.”

23. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s husband had “broke[n] a double-glazed window and smashed glass around the door by hurling a small bottle of wine at it”, or to omit that one of the witnesses had said this was not true during the court case. It supplied notes to demonstrate that it had been heard in court that the complainant’s husband had smashed the window, hit the door and hit the window. It provided the following reporter’s notes from court to support its position:

“PC […]’s evidence –

‘I saw the window had been smashed.

‘She [Leigh Smart] was quite upset but appeared quite under the influence of alcohol as well. I took a verbal account as she was reluctant to engage and did not wish to provide me with a written statement. It was a double-glazed window and the outer pane had been smashed, with the glass being on the path below it, and droplets of blood on the window itself’.

24. The publication did not consider the complainants’ position - that the article was misleading to report that Mrs Smart was offered “protection” by the Sheriff “if she felt she was unable to tell the truth because she was in an abusive relationship” - engaged the terms of Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code. It said this statement had been heard in open court, and it was entitled to report it.

25. It also did not consider the article was significantly inaccurate to report that the complainant’s father-in-law was a “retired policeman's son”. It provided two articles published by separate publications, along with the complainant’s husband’s Wikipedia page to IPSO; all three sources reported that the complainant’s husband was the son of either a “policeman” or “retired policeman”. The publication said this material was available in the public domain, undisputed, and had been published in good faith. However, four days after it was made aware of the complaint to IPSO, the publication offered to remove the reference from the online version of article, and add the following footnote clarification:

“A previous version of the article referred to Mr Smart as a ‘retired policeman's son’. Although this information can be found in the public domain, it is disputed by the complainant and therefore has been removed from the article."

26. It also did not consider the article was inaccurate to refer to the complainant’s husband’s previous convictions or to report that he had “attack[ed] a barman” and “headbutted a fan at an Oldham Christmas party”. It acknowledged that a 2017 conviction was spent but, noted this was referred to at the conclusion of the trial which the article reported on. It said that the Fiscal Depute confirmed to the Sheriff that the complainant’s husband had a number of previous convictions for violence, and said it was entitled to report this as it was heard in open court.

27. Further to this, the publication noted that the incidents referred to within the article had been referenced in the public domain for over 10 years and were seemingly undisputed. It provided three articles published by other publications to support its position – one of which was published in 2003 and 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”.

28. The publication did not consider the article was inaccurate to omit the following the information raised by the complainant: that the evidence from one of the witnesses was discredited; reference to further evidence she 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 Mr Smart Junior’s palm. It did not consider these points of complaint engaged the terms of Clause 1 under the Editors’ Code. It added that the article made clear that the Sheriff had commented that "there were so many inconsistencies among the other witnesses evidence", and that it was free to choose and publish what information is reported at court, as long as this does not amount to the story being misleading or inaccurate. It further added that, given the article clearly reported that the complainant denied that her husband attacked her, and accurately reported the outcome of the trial, it was satisfied that the article was accurate.

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

29. The Committee considered the headline’s description of the complainant’s husband as an “Ex-Hibs star” was not an inaccurate description of an individual who had played football at a professional level for that team. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

30. Committee next considered whether the article inaccurately reported that the complainant’s husband had been “carried into van by four police officers”. The publication had provided notes to support its position on this point. These said that the police officer giving evidence “believe[d] the four [police officers] had to carry him - he was refusing to walk.” The Committee also noted that the publication’s notes showed that, during his own evidence, the complainant’s husband had said he “could have walked to the car”. This again strongly indicated that it was heard during court proceedings that the complainant’s husband had not walked to the van of his own accord, but had been carried there by officers. In such circumstances the Committee was satisfied that the article was an accurate depiction of what had been heard in court on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

31. The Committee turned next to whether the article was inaccurate to refer to the incident as a “violent drunken bust up”. The publication had provided notes taken during the trial which showed that reference had been made to the individuals involved in the incident being under the influence of alcohol, and to the complainant’s husband behaving in a “violent” manner. The Committee did not consider, therefore, that the article was an inaccurate summary of what had been heard in court on these points. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1.

32. The Committee next considered whether the article inaccurately reported 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 and said “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.

33. The Committee then considered 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. 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 and that this had been referenced in court. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

34. The Committee then considered whether the article inaccurately reported that it had been heard in court that police officers found the complainant’s husband “raging” outside. The notes provided by the publication said that the police officers had described the complainant’s husband’s behaviour as “violent” and “aggressive”. They also said that when they arrived he was “stood outside the property”, and said “f**king come out here now” or a similar statement. Where it was heard in court the complainant’s husband had acted in this way as the police arrived the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to refer to ‘violent’ and ‘aggressive’ behaviour as having been “raging… outside”. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

35. The Committee also considered whether it was misleading to report that the “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”. 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.

36. 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.

37. The Committee then considered whether the article was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s husband was a “retired policeman's son”. The information had appeared previously within the public domain, unchallenged, on at least three occasions – and twice in news coverage. In such circumstances, the Committee considered the newspaper was entitled to rely on and repeat this information, and doing so did not represent a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point. 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).

38. With regards to the reference to past convictions, the Committee noted that references had initially been raised during the court proceedings, and the newspaper was entitled to report what had been heard in court. In relation to the specific references, 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 in an article about his most recent conviction. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

39. Last, the Committee considered whether the article was inaccurate to omit the following points flagged by the complainant: the evidence from one of the witnesses was discredited; further evidence she 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 Mr Smart Junior’s palm. 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. 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

40.  The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

41.  N/A

Date complaint received: 07/04/25

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/11/25

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.