Ruling

Resolution Statement 01782-14 Williams v Daily Mirror

    • Date complaint received

      17th August 2017

    • Outcome

      Resolved - IPSO mediation

    • Code provisions

      1 Accuracy

Resolution Statement 01782-14 Williams v Daily Mirror

1. Chris Williams complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “A date with death”, published on 8 November 2014.

2. The article reported that Cerys Yemm had been killed by Matthew Williams, whom it described as “cannibal killer”. The article stated that the victim had met Mr Williams on a night out and accompanied him back to his hostel, where she had been killed in an attack that involved acts of cannibalism.

3. The complainant was the father of Matthew Williams. He said that it was inaccurate to refer to his son as a “cannibal,” as at the time of publication no cause of death had been established. The complainant said that this claim was based on statements by witnesses and locals, which he believed were inaccurate.

4. The complainant and publication agreed to put the complaint on hold until after the inquests were complete and the full details of the event were known.

5. The complainant said that the inquest had found that cannibalism had not taken place, and therefore it had been inaccurate for the publication to report this when it had not been confirmed as fact.

6. The newspaper did not accept that it had breached the Code. It said that the article had been based on eye witness accounts, including a 999 call heard at the inquest. It said that the findings of the inquest did not make the article inaccurate, as it was published before the findings of the inquest were known; however they had published subsequent articles reporting the findings of the inquests, which made clear that no acts of cannibalism had taken place.

Relevant Code Provisions

7. 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.

Mediated Outcome

8. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

9. Following IPSO’s intervention, the publication added links to the follow-up articles to the original article so that readers were aware of the outcome of the inquest.

10. The complainant said that this resolved the matter to his satisfaction.

11. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 13/11/2014
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/06/2017