Resolution Statement – 03827-24 Szymanska v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Stephanie Szymanska complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Teacher spared jail for supplying cocaine as part of a crime ring is banned from the classroom for three years”, published on 13 May 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on the outcome of the complainant’s teacher misconduct panel. It reported that the complainant “who was spared jail for supplying cocaine as part of a crime ring ha[d] been banned from the classroom for three years”, and that she was “selling drugs in the local pub the Leather Bottle”. The article also included an image of the pub. The article reported that the complainant “was arrested after she was caught selling the Class A drug to undercover police officers in a pub in Essex”, and that she “was convicted as part of Essex Police's Operation Monaco which targeted individuals in Colchester”.

3. The complainant said the article inaccurately reported, in breach of Clause 1, that she was “spared jail for supplying cocaine as part of a crime ring” as she was not part of a crime ring, nor was this what she had been convicted for.

4. In addition to this, the complainant said the article inaccurately reported, in breach of Clause 1, that she “was also selling drugs in the local pub the Leather Bottle” as she was not found to have any connections to this pub.

5. Lastly, the complainant said the article breached Clause 1 as it reported that she was “banned from the classroom for three years” and that she was “spared jail”. The complainant said this was misleading as she had received a prohibition order and a suspended sentence. She noted the order was indefinite, unless she decided to make an application for it to be lifted.

6. During direct correspondence with the complainant, the publication accepted that she had not been convicted of being part of a “crime ring” nor was this was mentioned in her Teaching Regulation Agency hearing. It said the mistake occurred because the complainant was arrested as part of “Operation Monaco”: a police operation across Colchester which targeted violence and the sale of Class A drugs, under which several people had been arrested. It noted the complainant did not dispute this. The publication acknowledged that being part of a “crime ring” was not a specific offence, and considered it was clear that supplying a Class A drug was unlikely to be an activity that a person could do without any aid from others. It said that the original Essex Police press release was unavailable but that as soon as it was made aware of the complaint, it offered to remove this reference from the article, and add a footnote correction.

7. In addition to this, the publication did not consider it was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to report that the complainant “was also selling drugs in the local pub the Leather Bottle” as the reference to this pub came via an article published in 2022 by a local paper. The publication acknowledged that the article it relied upon did not clarify where specifically the complainant was caught dealing drugs and that it had made an error in assuming that this reference applied to the complainant. During direct correspondence with the complainant, it offered to remove the photograph of the pub but said that, absent of information highlighting the correct position, it did not consider this amounted to a significant inaccuracy.

8. Lastly, the publication did not consider that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant was “banned from the classroom for three years” or that she was “spared jail”. It said that the sentencing had been reported accurately.

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

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

10. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the article in full and print the following standalone correction in the corrections and clarifications section of its website:

“In an article published on 13 May we described how a teacher, Stephanie Szymanska, had been struck off the teaching register following a conviction for supplying cocaine as part of a crime ring, and said that she had sold drugs in the Leather Bottle pub in Colchester. We have been contacted by Ms Szymanska who says that it is incorrect to say she sold drugs at the Leather Bottle, nor was she ever involved in ‘a crime ring’. We accept that it was inaccurate to suggest these things, and have removed the article from MailOnline”.

11. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.

12. 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: 21/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/07/2024