05587-24 Hicks v Cornish Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Sir Robert Hicks complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Cornish Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Tributes paid to former South East Cornwall MP”, published on 15 May 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page 3 of the newspaper - reported on the death of former South East Cornwall MP, Colin Breed. It included the following: “Mr Breed successfully defeated incumbent MP Robert Hicks in the 1997 general election, retaining the seat before stepping down in 2010”.

3. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline: “Tributes paid to former South East Cornwall MP after passing”. This version of the article was published on 13 May 2024.

4. On 16 May, the day after the print article’s publication, the complainant complained directly to the publication. He said that he retired at the 1997 general election – he had not, therefore, been “defeated” by Mr Breed.

5. On 20 May, the publication responded to the complainant. It confirmed that it had updated the online article – the disputed line was amended to read as follows: “Mr Breed successfully won the seat, succeeding MP Robert Hicks who retired prior to the 1997 general election, retaining the seat before stepping down in 2010”. It had also published a footnote correction, which read:

“In the above story we suggested that the late Colin Breed defeated Robert Hicks to win the South East Cornwall seat. In fact, Mr Breed won the seat during the 1997 election following Mr Hicks’ retirement. The Cornish Times is happy to set the record straight.”

6. On 22 May, in the following edition of the print newspaper and under the title: “Clarification”, it also ran the following on page 4:

“IN a story published on May 15 entitled ’Tributes paid to former South East Cornwall MP’, we suggested that the late Colin Breed defeated Robert Hicks to win the South East Cornwall seat. In fact, Mr Breed won the seat during the 1997 election following Mr Hicks’ retirement. The Cornish Times is happy to set the record straight.”

7. On 12 September, the complainant complained to IPSO. He said the article had breached Clause 1 for the reasons noted above.

8. The complainant also expressed concerns with the newspaper’s clarification. Firstly, he objected to the use of “suggest” in the correction – he said that the article did not “suggest” that “the late Colin Breed defeated Robert Hicks”. Rather, it stated incorrectly that he had. Secondly, he disputed the term “during the election” – he said that Mr Breed won the seat at the election, not “during” some unspecified period of time. Finally, he also noted that his title was “Sir”, and not “Mr”.

9. On the above points, the complainant stated that the correction “compounded” the initial error. He also said that the correction had not been published with due prominence – and that the newspaper should publish an apology, given the inaccuracy had caused him “extreme anguish”.

10. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It acknowledged that the original version of the article was significantly inaccurate, and therefore required correction. However, it stated that it had promptly edited, and corrected, the online version and ran a clarification in a prominent position in the next available edition of the newspaper – it noted that the correction was placed on the second available news page, and said it would have been “impractical” to place the correction on the same page as the original article, as its page 3 is reserved for news leads.

11. Regarding the complainant’s objections to the corrective action already taken, it said it considered them to be “pedantic”, and that the use of the terms “suggested” and “during” were accurate. Further, it said that it did not consider an apology necessary – there was no malice behind what, it considered to be, a “simple mistake”.

12. In response, the complainant maintained that the phrasing of the correction failed to clarify the inaccuracy. He also expressed concerns regarding the newspaper’s editorial process that had led to the inaccuracy in the first place.

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

13. It was not in dispute that the publication had published inaccurate information, reporting that the complainant had been “defeated” in the 1997 general election when, in fact, he had not stood for election. The newspaper had accepted that the article was inaccurate on this point, and had not set out how care was taken over the accuracy of this point. The Committee also recognised that information relating to which electoral candidates stood in an election would be a matter of public record and the newspaper could have verified this prior to publication. In these circumstances, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

14. The Committee then turned to the significance of the inaccuracy, to determine whether it required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee first noted that neither party appeared to dispute that the information was significantly inaccurate. Further, it also took into account the significance of inaccurately reporting that an individual candidate had lost an election – it is important that newspapers are accurate sources of information on votes taken at both a local and national level. Given this, the inaccuracy was significant, therefore, and required correction as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

15. The publication had run a correction, and the Committee considered, firstly, whether the wording of the correction was sufficient to correct the record. The complainant had objected that the correction stated that the publication “suggested” Mr Breed had defeated him at the election. He had also disputed the term “during the election”, and noted that his title was “Sir”, and not “Mr”.

16. While the Committee noted the complainant’s concerns, it did not consider that the correction was inaccurate. In its view, it identified the reported inaccuracy – that Mr Breed had “defeated” the complainant – and put the correct position on record, which was that Mr Breed at won the seat following the complainant’s retirement. Despite the incorrect title, it was also clear that the correction was referring to the complainant.

17. The Committee also noted that the online correction had been published within four days of the newspaper being made aware of the complainant’s concerns – with the print correction being published in the next available print edition. The Committee was, therefore, satisfied that the corrective action was sufficiently prompt.

18. The Committee then turned to the prominence of the corrections. The Committee noted that the inaccuracy was a sole reference in the text of the article. Where the publication had removed it from the online version, and added a footnote correction, the Committee was satisfied that this was duly prominent.

19. However, the print correction had been published on page 4, one page further back than the original article. The Committee has, generally, required corrections to appear on the same page, or further forward, than an initial article – if a correction appears further back in the paper it generally would not be considered duly prominent, unless specific circumstances justified the position. The Committee noted the publication’s contention as to why the correction appeared further back, that page 3 was reserved for “news leads”. However, it did not consider this sufficient justification, given that corrections should, generally, be afforded the same prominence as original inaccuracy. In these circumstances, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) in respect to the print article.

20. The complainant had also stated that the correction warranted an apology. The Committee considered that an apology was not necessary in this instance, given: the breach arose from a single error within an article of which the complainant was not the primary focus, and the publication had taken clear and prompt steps to attempt to address the complainant’s concerns. Therefore, no breach of the Code arose from the lack of an apology.

Conclusions

21. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

22. Having partly 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.

23. The article inaccurately reported the complainant had been “defeated” at the 1997 general election. Further to this, the newspaper’s print correction had not satisfied the terms of Clause 1 (ii) – it had appeared further back in the newspaper than the original article, and was not, therefore, duly prominent. The Committee also took into account, however, that the inaccuracy was a passing reference in an otherwise accurate article, and that the publication had taken prompt corrective action, albeit the print correction was not sufficiently prominent.

24. In light of these factors, the Committee considered that the republication of a correction was the appropriate remedy. Given the breach of Clause 1 (ii) arose only from the print version, the correction should be published in print only, in a duly prominent position. As the inaccuracy had appeared on page 3, the correction should appear on page 3 or further forward.

25. The correction should acknowledge the reported inaccuracy – that the complainant had been “defeated” at the election and it should also put the correct position on record, namely that he had retired, and did not stand at said election.

26. The Committee noted that the wording previously ran by the newspaper would suffice, should it wish to republish it – however, the wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance, and should also make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 12/09/24

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/02/25