01944-25 Poile v wiltshiretimes.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Rob Poile complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that wiltshiretimes.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Former policeman with criminal record barred after lies”, published on 26 February 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - opened by reporting that the complainant “has been found guilty of gross misconduct after withholding information about his criminal history on a vetting form.”

3. It then reported: “The hearing heard how in December 2022, Poile's application to work at Avon and Somerset Police was rejected due to his criminal record.” Following this, the article reported:

“He then told Wiltshire Police in May 2023 that he had never been refused vetting clearance, and failed to mention his extensive criminal record.

Giving examples of Poile's past run-ins with the law, investigator [a named individual] said: ‘He declared on the vetting form that he had a 12-month band [sic] over for a drunk and disorderly offence when he was serving in the military in 1998, and two speeding tickets around 2005, but that was it.

‘There was no mention of any other offences.

‘He has previously been arrested for causing public fear, alarm or distress at a pub. When police arrived he was outside the pub and repeatedly used foul language.

‘In 1997 he failed to stop after a road traffic incident, and he was later also a suspect for theft when a rubber mat was taken from McDonald's.

‘In January 2000, three people were stopped with plastic BB guns which looked realistic. All of them were members of the armed forces and he was one of them.

‘Allegations have been made against him regarding racial comments to staff at a restaurant in Carterton.

‘In 2004, he was the suspect in a Gross Bodily Harm (GBH) case. However, no other information is known and there's nothing held on our system."

4. On 27 February – the day after the article’s publication – the complainant complained to the newspaper’s sister publication, which had run an identical article on the same day. He said that the article inaccurately reported he had a “criminal record”. He said he did not have a criminal record, and that the alleged criminal incidents referenced in the misconduct hearing all resulted in no further action being taken against him.

5. He also said that the article was inaccurate because the term “policeman” was outdated, and made assumptions about an individual’s gender.

6. In response, on the same day, the publication amended both articles – it later noted to IPSO that, owing to its content publishing system, updating one article updated both. The headline was amended to read: “Former policeman barred after lies on vetting form”. The article was also amended, and the article’s two references to the complainant’s “criminal record” replaced with “previous run-ins with the law” and “connection to criminal cases”, respectively.

7. In response, the complainant said that the article was still inaccurate: it referred to “gross bodily harm”, an offence he said did not exist, and he believed this suggested he had committed a form of sexual offence.

8. The complainant complained to IPSO on the above points. Expanding on his initial complaint to the publication, he said that he had a number of “non-convictions” which had been discontinued as “no further action”, owing to a lack of evidence, and given the offences had not occurred. The only offence he accepted he had committed was in relation to a “drunk and disorderly” incident. He said this incident resulted in him being bound over to keep the peace, which was not the same as a conviction, as the decision was made without any verdict being entered. He accepted that he had failed the vetting process, as reported in the article, but said that this was not because he had a “criminal record”. For the same reasons, he also complained about the article’s reference to his “criminal history”.

9. In relation to the GBH incident mentioned in the article, the complainant stated that this was an “administrative error on the Police’s part and simply [did] not exist in their records”. He said that no such incident had occurred.

10. During the course of IPSO’s investigation into the article from the newspaper’s sister publication, the complainant formally extended his complaint to cover both articles, from both publications.

11. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said it did not consider the term “criminal record” inaccurate or misleading in the context of the article: it said the complaint had a “history of criminal behaviour”, given he had been arrested for numerous incidents, and this had been the key point of his misconduct hearing. It also considered that the article explained, in detail, the specific actions which the complainant was alleged to have committed. In any event, it noted that it had already amended both the headline and the text of the article.

12. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to use the term “policeman”. It said that, while this may not be the official vocabulary used by the police, it was commonly used to refer to male police officers, and would not mislead a reader.

13. Finally, while it accepted that the term “gross bodily harm” was not an official offence, it said it believed this was heard in court; its reporter’s notes from the complainant’s hearing only referred to the abbreviation “GBH”. In any event, it said the article had included the correct abbreviation for the offence, and did not convey an inaccurate picture to the reader.

14. The complainant noted that the official report into this hearing – which was considered by IPSO as part of its investigation – made no reference to a criminal record.

15. Having had sight of the report, the publication noted that, under the heading “Allegation 2”, the report stated: “Since 2007 former PC 2668 Poile has failed to disclose to Wiltshire and other Forces on various applications, his involvement in significant crimes and incidents.”

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

16. The original version of the article – on three occasions, including in the headline – referred to the complainant as having a “criminal record”. He had disputed this, and stated that he had never been convicted of a criminal offence. He has also disputed the accuracy of the term “criminal history”, for the same reasons.

17. The Committee began with the reference to “criminal record”. It noted that the article set out the list of incidents which had been referenced at the complainant’s misconduct hearing, and made clear that he had: “been arrested”, been a “suspect”, been “stopped” by police, and had been the subject of “allegations”. The article made clear that the complainant’s failure to disclose his alleged involvement in these incidents during the vetting process contributed to his misconduct charge.

18. The Committee took this into account, and balanced this against what it considered the colloquial meaning of “criminal record”. In its view, the term “criminal record” would be taken to refer to a formal record of a person’s criminal convictions. It considered therefore that the term suggested that the complainant had previously been convicted of a criminal offence, and this would form part of his criminal record.

19. The Committee did not consider that the article substantiated this claim. It reported that the complainant had been involved, or was alleged to have been involved, in a number of incidents; it did not report, however, that he had been convicted of any offence. The publication had also not claimed that this was the case, that this had been heard at his hearing, or was reflected in the report of the hearing. While the report did refer to the complainant’s “involvement in significant crimes and incidents”, it did not say that he had a criminal record, or had been convicted of any offences.

20. The Committee noted that the article did set out the nature of the complainant’s “Poile's past run-ins with the law”. However, given the original article claimed multiple times – and prominently in the headline – that the complainant had a criminal record, the Committee did not consider that this was sufficient to address the overall article’s overall misleading impression that the complainant had been convicted of at least one criminal offence, and that this was heard during the misconduct hearing against the complainant.

21. Owing to this, the Committee considered the use of the term “criminal record” to be inaccurate, and its publication represented a lack of due care on the part of the publication: it has published a claim which did not been made during the misconduct hearing. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

22. For the same reasons, the Committee also considered that the use of the term “criminal history” represented inaccurate information. As with “criminal record”, the Committee considered that “criminal history” suggested the complainant had been convicted of criminal offences. However, it had not been said, during the misconduct hearing, that he had been found guilty of any criminal offence. Therefore, the Committee did not consider there a sufficient basis for the term. As such, this again represented a lack of care on the publication’s part. There was a further breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

23. The claim that the complainant had a “criminal record” and a “criminal history” was a serious allegation, which could have significant implications on the complainant’s reputation. The former reference also appeared in the article’s headline, increasing its prominence and visibility for a reader. The Committee further noted that newspapers often act as important and visible records of criminal and professional misconduct cases, serving the principle of open justice by accurately reporting the substance of what is heard during such hearings. It is therefore important that such hearings are reported accurately. Taking these factors into account, the Committee found that the article was significantly inaccurate and therefore required correction, as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

24. On receipt of the complaint to its sister publication, the newspaper amended both the headline and the text of the article under complaint to remove the inaccurate references to the complainant having a “criminal record”. The Committee welcomed that it had taken prompt action – however, it was clear that simply removing the inaccurate information did not constitute a correction. In the case of significantly inaccurate information, a correction must be published. The correction must both identify the inaccurate information – acknowledging that an error occurred - and put on record the correct position. Given the publication had not published a correction, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

25. The Committee then turned to the remaining alleged inaccuracies.

26. The complainant had also said that the article was inaccurate to refer to “gross bodily harm”. The Committee noted, firstly, that the term appeared in quote marks in the article, attributed to the investigator involved in the trial. The publication had said that this term had been heard aloud in the complainant’s hearing, and this had not been disputed by the complainant.

27. In any event, the Committee noted that newspapers are not responsible for the accuracy of what is heard by a court, or indeed a disciplinary hearing – rather, they are responsible for accurately reporting what is heard in such a hearing. Where it did not appear to be in dispute that the term “gross bodily harm” had been heard during proceedings, the Committee did not consider the publication’s reporting constituted a lack of due care. Equally, it noted that the article went on to refer to the abbreviation of GBH – given this abbreviation is commonly used to refer to the offence of grievous bodily harm, the Committee considered it was clear which offence was being referenced, and the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

28. Finally, the Committee considered the complainant’s concern regarding the use of “policeman” in the article. The complainant did not appear to have contended that the term was an inaccurate or misleading description of him personally, rather that it was a term no longer widely used. It noted this, however, the Committee considered the term “policeman” was an accurate descriptor in this case: the complainant was at one time a police officer, and – although the term may not be used by police forces – it was not an inaccurate descriptor of the complainant’s previous role. The term was not inaccurate or misleading, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

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

Remedial action required

30. 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.

31. The article originally reported that the complainant had a criminal record and a criminal history. This was significantly inaccurate, as it gave the impression that the complainant had been convicted of a criminal offence, which had not been heard at his misconduct hearing. At the same time, the Committee noted that it was not in dispute that the complainant had been alleged to be involved in a number of criminal incidents, although he had not been convicted in relation to these allegations. The Committee also noted that the publication had taken prompt action to amend the article, and that the reference to the complainant’s “criminal record” was only online for a day – albeit the reference to the complainant’s “criminal history” had not been removed from the article.

32. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the article had inaccurately reported that the complainant had a “criminal record” and a “criminal history”. It should also put the correct position on record: it was not heard at his misconduct hearing that the complainant had been found guilty of any criminal offence.

33. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. As the inaccurate information appeared in the headline to the article, which therefore gave it greater visibility and prominence, the correction should appear as a standalone correction, and a link should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way.

34. The publication had removed the references to “criminal record” – the reference to “criminal history”, however, still remained in the article. Given this, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, a correction should be added to the article and published beneath the headline. If the article is further amended, this correction should be published as a footnote.

35. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 09/05/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/08/2025