Resolution Statement – 03828-24 Szymanska v essexlive.news

Summary of Complaint

1. Stephanie Szymanska complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that essexlive.news breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Drug dealing Essex teacher banned from the classroom for at least three years”, published on 14 May 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on the outcome of the complainant’s teacher misconduct panel hearing. It reported that the complainant “who [had been] convicted of dealing cocaine across Colchester ha[d] been banned from the profession for at least three years”. The article also reported that the complainant “was caught by Essex Police when they were investigating the rise of drug-fuelled violence in the city”, and that “the offence took place on June 18, 2021, when she was subject to a sting by Essex Police that involved undercover officers purchasing drugs from targeted individuals”.

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to report that she had been “convicted of dealing cocaine across Colchester”. She said the word “dealing”, accompanied by “across Colchester”, implied she had a regular and habitual practice of selling cocaine and this was not the case: she had been convicted of one instance of supplying the drug to an undercover officer.

4. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported that she had been “caught by Essex Police when they were investigating the rise of drug-fuelled violence in the city”. She said she had not been linked to the other offenders or involved in any other offence within the investigation.

5. The publication did not accept it had breached Clause 1 by reporting that the complainant had been “convicted of dealing cocaine across Colchester”. It said the term “dealing” was accurate as the complainant had been convicted of ‘supplying controlled drug class A – Cocaine’. It also did not consider the article was inaccurate in its reference to the Essex Police investigation, as it made clear that the complainant was connected to only one offence. It supported its position by referring to an article published by a different publication; this reported that the police investigation had identified a number of people unconnected to one another, all involved in drug-related activities across Colchester’s licensed premises and homes, and that the complainant was one of the people identified.

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

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

7. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to amend the opening paragraph of the article to clarify that the complainant’s individual offence formed part of an investigation carried out across Colchester. It offered to amend the paragraph to the following:

“A teacher who was convicted of dealing cocaine as part of a wider investigation into drug crime across Colchester has been banned from the profession for at least three years. Stephanie Szymanska, 36, was caught by Essex Police when they were investigating the rise of drug-fuelled violence in the city”.

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

9. 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