01748-25 Green v cornwalllive.com

Summary of Complaint

1. Chris Green complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that cornwalllive.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a headline, “Police investigate 'possible electoral malpractice' in relation to Cornwall Council candidate”, published on its homepage on 17 April 2025.

2. The headline appeared on the publication’s homepage, and linked to an article which reported: “Police received a report of ‘possible electoral malpractice’ in relation to an election candidate standing for Cornwall Council.” The article – which was not, itself, under complaint – was subsequently taken down, before being republished at a later date.

3. As part of his complaint, the complainant supplied an image of the headline as it appeared on Google – it appeared accompanied by a blurred image of his campaign leaflet. He also said that the headline appeared on the publication’s homepage, illustrated with a photo. Although he was not able to supply an image of this, the publication accepted that it appeared on the homepage in the same format, “or similarly enough.”

4. The complainant – the “Cornwall Council candidate” referenced in the headline - complained that the headline which appeared on the homepage breached Clause 1. He said that it was inaccurate to say the police were investigating him – he said the term “police investigation” had a very specific meaning, and in reality, there had merely been a report made to the police.

5. He also said that the publication had been informed that there was no police investigation prior to the article’s publication. He supplied a text message sent to a reporter for the publication on 16 April, which included the following: “I have no objection to legitimate press attention but I am lawfully nominated […] Any suggestion of improper behaviour, a police investigation or criminality is inaccurate.”

6. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. In support of its position, it supplied its correspondence with the local police force, which had informed it - prior to the headline’s publication: "We have been made aware of report of possible electoral malpractice in the Truro area. Enquiries are ongoing". Subsequently, on 28 April, after the publication of the headline, the police had stated that: “no further action will be taken after an investigation found no breach of election law.” Where the police had used the term “investigation”, the publication considered its headline accurate.

7. In response, the complainant noted that the initial police statement referred to a “report of possible electoral malpractice”, and that enquires were ongoing. He said that a report being received, and preliminary enquiries being made, was materially different to the police launching an investigation – the latter, he said, implied an official and potentially serious step. He added that the police’s subsequent statement - given after the publication of the headline, in which the police referenced “an investigation” - could not be used to justify the headline, given it was not received until after it was published.

8. The complaint said that, on 23 April, he had been contacted by the police. He said the police contacted him as a result of the headline, and not because an investigation had already begun. He said that the police were satisfied he had no case to answer – this contact could not, in his view, be accurately described as an “investigation.”

9. The publication noted that the headline did not refer to a "police investigation" or report that an investigation had been launched – rather, it reported that "police investigate 'possible electoral malpractice',” which it considered to be 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

10. The complainant had contended that the police had conducted preliminary inquiries following the headline’s publication and that the extent of the police’s involvement could not be accurately described as an “investigation”.

11. However, in the Committee’s view, the term “police investigate” did not necessarily mean the complainant was under formal investigation. The Committee considered that this could reasonably be taken to mean the police were conducting enquiries, or were looking into the matter, which appeared to be accurate.

12. In any event, the Committee also took into account the publication’s correspondence with the police. The police had stated that, “after an investigation”, no action was being taken. In this specific case therefore, given the police had used the term “investigation” following their enquiries into the complainant’s actions, the Committee did not consider the headline was inaccurate in its use of the phrase. Given there was no inaccuracy, there was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

13. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

14. N/A

Date complaint received: 17/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/10/2025