Resolution Statement – 03601-24 Smith v Telegraph.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. David Smith complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Telegraph.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “League tables of migrant nationalities with highest crime rates opposed by civil servants”, published on 12 May 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on a proposal “backed by 40 Tory MPs as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill”. It said this proposal “would require the crime rates of each nation’s migrants in England and Wales to be published annually” and would involve ministers presenting “a report to Parliament each year detailing the nationality, visa status and asylum status of every offender convicted in English and Welsh courts in the previous 12 months”. The article also reported that “Civil servants [we]re trying to block” these plans and that “civil servants ha[d] advised that Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, [wa]s likely to rule the amendment [wa]s not ‘in scope’ for the Bill”. In addition to this, the article reported that this would have meant that the Bill “would be judged to be out of kilter with the thrust of the legislation which primarily aims to crack down on knife crime, drugs, anti-social behaviour and other crimes”. It also reported that there were concerns within Whitehall that the Bill had “become a “Christmas Tree” bill, with multiple amendments potentially added to it including on decriminalising abortion and combating county lines gangs”.

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1; he considered the headline was not supported by the text of the article. The complainant said the headline of the article misled readers and gave the impression that civil servants were failing in their duty to implement policy as directed by the Government and their elected ministers by taking a political and/or ethical stance. He considered the text of the article contradicted the headline, where it reported that “civil servants have advised that Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, is likely to rule the amendment is not ‘in scope’ for the Bill”.

4. The publication said it did not consider the headline of the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as the text of the article made clear that the proposal by MPs for league tables was “enshrined” in legislation, by way of an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. The publication considered the use of the term “opposed” within the headline was supported: it said the article made clear that civil servants considered the amendment likely to be ruled as not “in scope” for the Bill, and that there were concerns regarding multiple amendments being made to the Bill. It said in these circumstances it was not inaccurate to characterise this as an ‘opposition’. The publication also said it did not consider the word “opposition” suggested a criticism of the civil service, nor did it consider that the article read as a whole suggested that civil servants were taking 'a political and/or ethical stance' as suggested by the complainant.

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.

Mediated Outcome

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

6. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to amend the headline of the article to the following:

"League table of migrant nationalities with highest crime rates legislation opposed by civil servants".

It also offered to amend the first line of the article to read:

"Civil servants are trying to block plans for legislation for league tables of the migrant nationalities with the highest rates of crime".

7. The complainant said that this would not resolve the matter to his satisfaction and suggested the following amendment to the headline:

“Civil Service advises league tables of migrant nationalities with highest crime rates would likely not be accepted into Criminal Justice Bill”.

And the following amendment to the opening paragraph:

“Civil servants have advised ministers that plans for league tables of the migrant nationalities with the highest rates of crime would likely not be accepted into the Criminal Justice Bill”.

8. The publication accepted the suggested amendment to the opening paragraph however did not accept the complainant’s suggested amendment to the headline due to is length and style, and instead proposed the following:

“League tables of migrant nationality crime rates plan unlikely to be accepted, civil servants advise”.

9. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.

10. 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: 13/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/07/2024