05711-25 Walker v Daily Record

Summary of Complaint

1. Craig Walker complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Record breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ex-top cop’s plea over custody deaths End the bystander culture that killed Allan and Sheku”, published on 4 October 2026.

2. The article, which appeared on page 26, reported on the views of a former chief inspector and member of the Violence Reduction Unit, who had experience of delivering “bystander training”. The article reported that he had urged police “to break the bystander culture that can lead to violent deaths” and that he “said violent deaths – such as those of Allan Marshall in HMP Edinburgh and Sheku Bayoh during an arrest – could have been avoided if colleagues had stepped in.” It included a quote from the former chief inspector which said: “it became clear to me that Allan’s death was totally preventable”.

3. The article also appeared online, under the headline “Ex-cop calls for the end of ‘bystander culture’ after brutal custody deaths”. It was similar to the print version of the article, but contained additional information. It reported that the “brutal death of Sheku Bayoh in 2015 also featured similar bystander behaviour, [the former chief inspector] claims, where no-one intervened despite Sheku being overpowered and receiving many serious injuries that led to his death“. It also reported that the former chief inspector “believes [the case of Allan Marshall] and others involving police officer malpractice - including the death of Sheku Bayoh in the same year” could be avoided and that “Institutions, [he] claims, can be plagued by rigid loyalties and instincts that can allow them to witness bad things happen, then get embroiled in a cover-up.”

4. The article was also linked to on the publication’s Facebook page, accompanied by a caption which said that the former chief inspector had claimed “the deaths of Allan Marshall and Sheku Bayoh underline need for new approach to loyalty among officers in front-line criminal justice jobs”.

5. The complainant – a police officer present at when Sheku Bayoh was restrained – said that the article was misleading, in breach of Clause 1, as he believed it presented speculation and opinion surrounding Mr Bayoh’s death as fact. He said the online article was inaccurate to describe Mr Bayoh’s death as “involving police officer malpractice” and that Mr Bayoh died due to "serious injuries". He said there was no finding of malpractice and that the established medical cause of death was "sudden death in a man intoxicated by MDMA and alpha-PVP, whilst being restrained." He said that, whilst there were injuries sustained during the arrest, these were classed as “a number of minor blunt force injuries” and did not lead to Mr Bayoh’s death – rather, they were injuries such as cuts, bruises and broken rib.

6. The complainant said both versions of the article were inaccurately juxtapose the case of Mr Bayoh’s death with that of Allan Marshall; the police admitted formal liability in the latter case only. He said that the central premise of the article - that bystander intervention would have saved Mr Bayoh’s life – suggested that there was improper behaviour on the behalf of the police that should have been corrected.

7. The complainant said the online article was inaccurate to describe the death as being “brutal” and to reference “brutality”. He added that print article’s description of the death as “violent” was also inaccurate. The complainant also said the online article was inaccurate to refer to institutions being embroiled in “cover-ups”, as Mr Bayoh’s death had not been found to be a cover up.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. The publication said it took care not to publish inaccurate information by relying on information provided as part of the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry and the informed opinion of the former chief inspector, who had expertise in the area. However, on receipt of a separate complaint, and prior to IPSO making the publication aware of the complainant’s concerns, the publication removed all references to Mr Bayoh’s death from the online version of the article.

9. While the publication said that the reference to police officer malpractice was clearly the opinion of the former chief inspector, at the start of IPSO’s investigation and one month after being made aware of the complaint, the publication offered to add the following as a footnote as a gesture of goodwill to the online article:

“A previous version of the article included factual reference to ‘police officer malpractice’, yet as this is part of an ongoing public inquiry, it has since been removed from the article.”

10. With regard to the claims of “serious injuries”, brutality and violence, the publication said that the inquiry had examined the death of Mr Bayoh, which the publication asserted was both violent and happened while he was in custody. The publication provided a link to the inquiry website, which included various documents and witness statements, including Mr Bayoh’s post-mortem report. The publication said that evidence submitted to the inquiry included that the restraint of Mr Bayoh involved a violent altercation – with officers using batons, deterrent spray and physical restraint – that Mr Bayoh was restrained face-down by up to six officers for several minutes using their body weight, handcuffs, and leg restraints. The restraint was highlighted as carrying a foreseeable risk of positional asphyxia. The publication noted that Mr Bayoh’s post-mortem report noted 23 separate injuries. It also said that submissions from family representatives and others described the initial police actions as violent and the restraint as excessive. Given the evidence submitted to the inquiry, the publication considered that the article’s language on these points was clearly substantiated.

11. With regard to the complainant’s concerns about the reference to “bystander culture”, the publication said the article was a report on the opinion of an expert interviewee, whose work aimed to reduce violence by offering bystander training. It said his expert view was that properly trained bystanders might have been able to intervene during the incident and, in doing so, he implied that Mr Bayoh may not have suffered the documented injuries and possible asphyxia set out in the post-mortem. The publication said that the article clearly distinguished between comment, conjecture, and fact when setting this out – for example by reported that the former chief inspector “claims” or “believes”.

12. The publication said the article did not state that Mr Bayoh’s death was covered up: the reference to “cover-ups” was not specific to the case and was distinguished as the former chief inspector’s general opinion.

13. The complainant accepted that the inquiry had heard evidence of a struggle in which officers deployed batons, spray and restraint. However, he said that the inquiry described these as use-of-force and control measures, and that the post-mortem and police evidence used more neutral language than Mr Bayoh’s family.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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

14. The Committee first noted that its role was not to determine whether police malpractice had been involved in the death of Mr Bayoh, or to determine Mr Bayoh’s cause of death. It was not the appropriate body for either of these decisions. Rather, the Committee’s decision would be limited to whether the publication had fulfilled its obligations under the Editors’ Code.

15. The Committee noted that the inquiry into Mr Bayoh’s death was ongoing, and that there was clearly a disagreement between relevant parties as to whether the police had behaved inappropriately. It also noted that the article was reporting on the “calls” and views of the former chief inspector. Notwithstanding this, the article was required to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact when reporting the chief inspector’s comments.

16. The online version of the article reported that the former chief inspector had referred to the case of Allan Marshall “and others involving police officer malpractice - including the death of Sheku Bayoh”. Whilst the sentence was clearly attributed to the former chief inspector, it did not clearly distinguish that this was the former chief inspector’s own opinion of Mr Bayoh’s case, rather than a reference to a formal finding of malpractice against police officers involved in the case. On this basis, the Committee found that there was a breach of Clause 1 (iv). The failure to make clear that this was an opinion created the implication that that there had been a formal finding of police malpractice. This represented a failure to take care not to publish misleading information, in breach of Clause 1 (i).

17. The online version of the article also reported that “brutal death of Sheku Bayoh in 2015 also featured similar bystander behaviour, [the former inspector] claims, where no-one intervened despite Sheku being overpowered and receiving many serious injuries that led to his death”. Again, whilst the article had reported that this was a “claim” of the former chief inspector, the Committee considered that reporting that receiving “many serious injuries […] led to his death” was a claim of fact, that had not been distinguished as comment, in breach of Clause 1 (iv).

18. Mr Bayoh’s post-mortem was in the public domain, and indeed the publication had relied on the documents that were publicly available as part of the inquiry when writing the article. The official cause of death was not due to multiple injuries that had been received during the incident, but rather "sudden death in a man intoxicated by MDMA and alpha-PVP, whilst being restrained”. Omitting this information, whilst characterising it as death due to the injuries received, was a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1 (i).

19. Malpractice by the police and misreporting the cause of death, particularly in a case involving the death of a person in custody, was a matter of public importance and was clearly significant. It therefore required correction under Clause 1 (ii).

20. The publication had amended the online article, prior to receiving the complaint from IPSO, to remove all reference to Mr Bayoh’s death. It then published a clarification a month after receiving the complaint, which referred to a “factual reference to ‘police officer malpractice’”. However, the clarification did not specify that this factual reference related to Mr Bayoh’s death, nor did it address that Mr Bayoh’s official cause of death was not due to serious injuries. The correction did not put the correction position on record and, therefore, did not satisfy the terms of Clause 1 (ii), and there was a breach of this sub-Clause.

21. The online article had referred to Mr Bayoh’s injuries as “serious” and that his death was “brutal”, whilst the print article described it as “violent”. Whilst the complainant had disputed that the injuries were serious, as they had been described as “minor” in the post-mortem, the Committee did not consider it to be inaccurate to describe injuries made via blunt force trauma that resulted in a broken rib, amongst other injuries, to be “serious”, or that his death was therefore “brutal” or “violent”. There was no breach of the Code on these points.

22. The Committee noted the complainant’s opinion that Mr Bayoh’s death should not have been used as an example of “bystander culture”, or included in an article alongside Mr Marshall’s. However, newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code. The Committee found that, notwithstanding the above breaches, the reason for including Mr Bayoh’s case in the article – that the former inspector believed properly trained bystanders may have been able to prevent his death - was clearly distinguished as the former chief inspector’s opinion. There was no breach on this point.

23. Finally, the Committee noted that the article did not report that Mr Bayoh’s death had been a “cover-up”. Rather, the online article reported the former chief inspector’s opinion that institutions “can be plagued by rigid loyalties and instincts that can allow them to witness bad things happen, then get embroiled in a cover-up.” Where this was both distinguished as opinion regarding institutions more broadly – rather than the police officers involved in Mr Bayoh’s death specifically - the Committee did not consider this to be inaccurate in the way described by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

24. The complaint against the online version of the article was upheld under Clause 1 (i), Clause 1 (ii), and Clause 1 (iv).

Remedial action required

25. Having 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.

26. The Committee considered it was significantly misleading to report that the death of Mr Bayoh involved “police malpractice” and that many serious injuries led to his death, without making clear that this was the opinion of an expert in bystander culture.

27. The publication had removed all reference to Mr Bayoh from the article prior to receiving the complaint, and had published a clarification to say that the inquiry was still ongoing. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that it was an expert’s opinion that the case of Mr Bayoh involved “police malpractice” and that serious injuries led to his death. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that the inquiry was ongoing and his cause of death was sudden death in a man intoxicated whilst being restrained.

28. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. The inaccuracies only appeared in the online version of the article, had not appeared in the headline, and had been deleted. Therefore, the correction should be published as a footnote.

29. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 28/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/03/2026