Satisfactory Remedy – 04556-24 Mitchison v express.co.uk
-
Complaint Summary
Neil Mitchison complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Are EU nationals allowed to vote in the UK General Election?”, published on 4 July 2024.
-
-
Published date
31st October 2024
-
Outcome
Resolved - satisfactory remedy
-
Code provisions
1 Accuracy
-
Published date
Summary of Complaint
1. Neil Mitchison complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Are EU nationals allowed to vote in the UK General Election?”, published on 4 July 2024.
2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on who was eligible to vote in the UK General Election. It said: “EU citizens are not entitled to vote or stand as a candidate in UK parliament elections – such as the General Election,”
3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as EU citizens of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus who were residents in the UK were entitled to vote. He expressed concern that the article had been published on the morning of the General Election, and complained to the publication on the same day to make it aware of the alleged inaccuracy.
4. The publication amended the article 1 hour and 51 minutes after it was originally published – 1 hour and 4 minutes after the complainant had contacted the publication - to add: “However, many EU citizens are not entitled to vote or stand as a candidate in UK Parliament elections - such as the General Election - but some are. The Electoral Commission website states that ’EU citizens cannot vote or stand as a candidate in UK Parliament elections.’ However, it also - in drop-down menus - reveals there are some exceptions to this. For example, citizens of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta living in the UK can still register, vote and stand as candidates in all elections held in the UK.”
5. The complainant did not accept that the amendment resolved his complaint. He said the additional paragraph was confusing and said that the phrase "For example" was misleading as the only exceptions were citizens of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus who resided in the UK.
6. The publication and complainant corresponded directly in an attempt to resolve the complaint. The complainant accepted that the article had been amended quickly and that the article was factually correct, however he said he still had outstanding concerns, and felt there had not been sufficient fact-checking prior to publication.
7. On 8 July, the publication informed IPSO the complaint had been resolved as the complainant accepted the article was factually correct in direct correspondence, following the article’s amendment. On the same day the complainant told IPSO that the amendment did not resolve his complaint. On 12 July, eight days after the publication was made aware of the complaint and four days after the complainant had confirmed that his complaint had not been resolved, it added the following footnote correction:
“A previous version of this article erroneously stated that ‘EU citizens are not entitled to vote or stand as a candidate in UK Parliament elections.’ In fact, citizens of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta living in the UK can still register, vote and stand as candidates in all elections held in the UK. We are happy to set the record straight.”
8. The complainant did not accept the publication’s correction and said that the article could have prevented individuals who were entitled to vote voting on polling day.
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.
v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
Relevant IPSO Regulations
40. If a Regulated Entity offers a remedial measure to a complainant which the Regulator or, if applicable, the Complaints Committee considers to be a satisfactory resolution of the complaint, but such measure is rejected by the complainant, the Regulator or, if applicable, the Complaints Committee shall notify the complainant of the same and that, subject to fulfilment of the offer by the Regulated Entity, it considers the complaint to be closed and a summary of the outcome shall be published on the Regulator's website.
Outcome
9. The publication requested that IPSO consider whether the remedial measures it had offered to the complainant amounted to a satisfactory resolution of the complaint such that, subject to fulfilment of the offer, the complaint could be closed.
10. The Committee considered that the correction published with was sufficient promptness given that it was published soon after the conclusion of a dialogue with the complainant – during which the publication necessarily had to wait for the complainant’s responses and confirmation that his complaint had not been resolved – and was published four days after the complainant confirmed that the amendments to the article had not resolved his complaint. The Committee also considered that correction set out the original inaccuracy and put the correct position on record, which was that citizens of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta living in the UK can still register, vote and stand as candidates in all elections held in the UK. The Committee was also satisfied that the footnote correction was duly prominent, given the original the inaccurate information appeared in the text of the article – rather than in the headline.
11. The Committee acknowledged that, on some occasions, there may be a public interest in the publication of a fully-reasoned decision which would mean that the application of Regulation 40 is not appropriate. However, in this case the Committee considered that – in light of the short amount of time the inaccuracy had been live and given the nature of the inaccuracy - a fully reasoned decision was not necessary.
12. Having taken into account the nature of the complaint and the publication’s remedial actions in response, the Committee concluded that the remedial measures offered by the publication were a satisfactory resolution of the complaint and the complaint would be closed.
Date complaint received: 04/07/2024
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 22/10/2024