01641-24 Buckenham v Louth Leader

Summary of Complaint

1. Billy Buckenham complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Louth Leader breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “New-look parish council returns”, published on 3 April 2024.

2. The article opened by reporting that “the first meeting of a new-look parish council has been held after the resignation of all but one of its members”. It stated that the “East Lindsey District Council’s proper officer appointed three district and one county councillor to sit on [the] council until the council become quorate by election or cooption, after all except [named councillor] resigned in January.” It went on to report the same named councillor had “pleaded guilty to assault by beating of former chairman” – the complainant. It said the named councillor “at Boston Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday (March 27) [….] received a fine of £350. A second charge of criminal damage to property valued under £5,000, a £20 iPad stand, was dismissed by magistrates”.

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it inaccurately reported a charge of criminal damage against the named councillor had been thrown out. To support his position, the complainant supplied a letter sent to him by the police which said, “at the hearing on 27 March 2024 at Boston Magistrates Court, [named councillor], pleaded guilty to the following charges: Assault by beating”. The document also said that the named councillor had been “sentenced as follows: fined £138.00; to pay court costs of £85.00; to pay a surcharge of £55.00 to aid Victim Services; to pay compensation”. It also stated that “compensation has been awarded to [the complainant] by the court in the sum of £20.”

4. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate because he said there “was no such thing” as a “proper officer” on the council; this role did not exist for parish councils.

5. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate because it omitted context about his dispute with the convicted councillor and the council’s history. This included: the fact assault by beating occurred during a public meeting; previous resignations of parish councillors; and that one of the councillors had been given unrestricted control of the parish council website, and had subsequently removed meeting minutes from the site. The complainant also said the headline was inaccurate because it referred to “new-look parish council”, while omitting to mention the fact the new council was a result of mass resignations.

6. The complainant also said the article breached the Code because the newspaper had not contacted him or the rest of the council prior to publication.

7. The newspaper did not accept its report of the charges was inaccurate in the way the complainant alleged. It said that, prior to publication, the court had confirmed over the phone that the charge of criminal damage against the named councillor had been “thrown out”. It provided the reporter’s notes of this call to support its position. On receiving the complaint, the newspaper contacted the court again. At this point, the court stated the charge of criminal damage had been “withdrawn” rather than “thrown out”.

8. On 24 June, the publication agreed to offer a correction on this point. The correction read as follows:

“In an article that was published in the Louth Leader in the April 4, 2024 edition, headlined “New-look parish council returns” we stated that a charge of criminal damage against East Lindsay District Councillor […] had been 'dismissed' by local magistrates. We have been asked to make clear that court records show this charge was 'withdrawn' rather than 'dismissed'. We are happy to clarify any misunderstanding.”

9. Regarding the term “proper officer” the newspaper said the phrase was taken from an email sent by the district council, which it provided to IPSO. In the email, a government communications professional stated: “the Proper Officer appointed 3 District and 1 County Councillor to sit on the Parish Council until such time that the Parish Council become quorate by election/co-option.”

10. The publication did not accept that the information omitted from the article rendered it inaccurate. Regarding additional details of the assault by beating, it said that, as none of its reporters were present in court, for legal safety and accuracy it was only able to report the other councillor’s appearance in court and the charges and sentencing, as per the court office records. While it noted the complainant’s view that the council was not acting correctly in its processes and conduct, it said the article accurately reported on the situation as it stood at the time of publication and reported in good faith the information provided by the parish and district councils. It said it was not correct to say the newspaper had not referred to the resignations of councillors – it said this had been reported in separate articles which remained on its website. Regarding the minutes which had been removed, the newspaper said that whether the removal of the minutes were permitted or not did not affect the accuracy of its report, as the minutes were not mentioned.

11. The publication did not accept it had breached Clause 1 by publishing the article without contacting the complainant or the former councillors. It said fair and accurate reports of court hearings are privileged, and that an out-of-court comment on a case which its reporters had not been in court to witness would not carry any legal privilege and could potentially leave the paper open to legal action. It also said it spoke directly to the relevant district council regarding the accuracy of the article’s reporting.

12. During IPSO’s investigation, the complainant accepted that the proper officer referred to in the article was an individual who worked for the district council, rather than the parish council.

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 first considered whether the newspaper had taken care not to print inaccurate information in reporting the charge against the named councillor was “dismissed” rather than withdrawn. The newspaper had approached the court for confirmation of the nature of the charge and the court had stated the charge was ”thrown out”, which the Committee considered could be taken to mean “dismissed”, given the ultimate effect was that this charge against the councillor had not been pursued. It had taken contemporaneous notes which confirmed this. As such, the Committee considered the newspaper had taken care over the accuracy of the information and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

14. The Committee then considered whether it was significantly inaccurate to report the charge was “withdrawn” rather than dismissed. Regardless of the discrepancy in the precise language used, the article made clear that one had not been pursued by the court. In this context, the Committee did not consider the discrepancy between the stating the charge was “withdrawn” or “dismissed” represented a significant inaccuracy in need of correction - though the Committee welcomed the publication’s decision to clarify the matter. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

15. The complainant did not dispute that there was a proper officer employed by the district council. In such circumstances, the article was not inaccurate to refer to a proper officer and there was no breach of Clause 1.

16. The complainant had said that the headline of the article was inaccurate because it did not state that the “new look” council had been formed due to the resignation of most of the previous council. However, Clause 1 does not require that headlines set out the full context to articles, provided they are supported by the text of the articles and are not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. The Committee noted that the article itself made clear that “all except” a single councillor had “resigned in January” and that this was why a new council had been formed – the headline was therefore supported and clarified by the text of the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

17. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns about the omission of the information from the article. Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code. In this case, omitting additional context about the alleged behaviour of the named councillor and their dispute with the complainant; the resignations; and the alleged removal of the minutes, did not make the article or headline inaccurate or misleading. This was because the article focused on the formation of the new council, and omitting to include wider context about previous events regarding the previous council did not render the article – focussing on the formation of a new council – inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

18. The Committee turned to the complainant’s concerns about the fact that he and his fellow councillors had not been approached for comment prior to publication. It noted the Editors’ Code does not say publications have to contact people or organisations before they publish articles, unless this is necessary in order to take care to ensure an article is accurate, or to give them the opportunity to respond to significant inaccuracies in articles they publish. Where the article did not contain any inaccurate information over which there was a requirement to take care or correct, there was no breach of Clause on this point.

Conclusions

19. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

20. N/A

Date complaint received: 18/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 07/11/2024