05748-24 Bhamra v Welwyn & Hatfield Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Gurjinder Bhamra, acting on his own behalf and on the behalf of his father Bahadur Bhamra, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Welwyn & Hatfield Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Father and son fined £27k for illegally cutting down trees”, published on 29 May 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page three - reported on a High Court trial against the complainant for the illegal felling of trees. It said “A father and son have been fined £27,500 for illegally cutting down tress [sic] in Welwyn Garden City. At a trial at the High Court in London, Mr and Mr Bhamra were ordered to pay Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council’s costs, after trees were felled at a site in Mornington, Digswell.” The article also said that, in “October 2023, the council became aware that a number of trees in the wooded site were being cut down without the appropriate consent.”

3. The article also quoted a local Councillor:

“’This injunction sends out a clear message to people who have no regard for our natural environment and highlights the importance of our Tree Protection Orders,’ said Cllr […], Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council’s executive member for planning. ‘We would always seek to educate and advise before taking any enforcement action. But with Action on Climate Change one of the council’s key priorities, we are 100 per cent committed to protecting and increasing the biodiversity of our borough now and for our future generations.’”

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline “Men fined £27k for illegally cut down Digswell trees”. This version of the article was published on 24 May 2024 included a photograph of a wooded site.

5. The complainant contacted the publication directly on 10 September to complain that the article breached Clause 1. He said the headline and article were inaccurate as he and his father had not been fined, and the council had not won any legal battle against them. He said this misrepresentation would impact their reputation and requested a correction.

6. The complainant also said that it was incorrect to say that 34 trees died under their watch; he said the trees were already in a state of neglect due to previous mismanagement of the site, and that permission to fell the trees was granted by the council.

7. On 11 September, the publication responded to the complainant and confirmed it had amended the headline to “Men to pay £27k for unauthorised cutting down of trees“. It also updated the article to report that the £27,000 the complainant had been told to pay was an order to repay council costs rather than a fine. It also published a footnote correction and offered to publish a correction in print. The footnote correction said:

"Editor's note: This story has been updated. An earlier version stated the court had fined the men £27,000 for illegally felling trees. In fact, they were ordered to pay council costs following the investigation into the unauthorised felling of trees. We're happy to set the record straight and apologise for any confusion."

8. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication confirmed that the print correction would appear on page three and would state the following:

“In an article published on page 3 of the Welwyn Hatfield Times on May 29 2024 we incorrectly stated Mr Bhamra and his son had been fined at the High Court for the felling of trees. Stating this was a fine in the headline and first paragraph for the story was inaccurate. In fact, Mr Bhamra was ordered to pay Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council £27,000 in court costs after the council secured an injunction at the High Court. We apologise for the mistake and any confusion caused.”

9. The complainant had further discussions with the newspaper. He said the correction offered by the publication was insufficient. Instead, he said that it should publish his email to the publication setting out his complaint in full. He also said that he planned to appeal the High Court decision.

10. On 25 September the newspaper offered to amend the online article to include the following:

“A spokesperson for the Bharma family has confirmed they intend to appeal the High Court decision. He said: ‘Our intention for the land at […] has consistently been to manage and enhance the area responsibly. We dispute the narrative that 34 trees died under our watch; we maintain these trees were already in a state of neglect due to previous mismanagement before our acquisition of the site. That is why we intend to appeal this decision and have submitted the necessary request as we await an appeal date. Our efforts have been directed towards revitalising this land in accordance with environmental goals.’”[sic]

11. The complainant said this still wasn’t sufficient and the newspaper should publish an apology. He also said that the correction didn’t include the fact that he had planning permission to fell the 34 dead trees.

12. The publication then contacted the Council, which confirmed that the 34 trees which had been felled were not the same ones that the complainant had permission to cut down – it later provided IPSO with this email.

13. On 3 October, the complainant complained directly to IPSO. He said the article breached Clause 1 for the reasons stated above.

14. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate as it had quoted a misleading statement from a councillor. The complainant said the publication has failed to distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact in its coverage – in breach of Clause 1 (iv). He said it editorialised certain aspects of the case and development activities without clarifying the difference between speculation and fact.

15. In addition, the complainant said the article emphasised the court’s financial ruling without reporting what he considered to be the council’s own neglect in adhering to procedural standards. He said it portrayed the injunction as a necessary step for environmental protection, ignoring the repeated attempts on his part to seek a less costly and more constructive resolution via alternative dispute resolution.

16. The complainant further said he had not been given a fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies within the article, as required by Clause 1 (iii) of the Editors’ Code.

17. The complainant also said the article might be used for political gain, which he also said breached the Code.

18. The complainant also complained under Clause 2. He said the publication had intruded into his and his father’s private and family life by publishing inaccurate information and publishing details without their consent. He also said the material in the article was not in the public domain. The complainant also said the publication used unauthorised photographs of him and the property without consent.

19. The complainant also said the newspaper had breached Clause 3 by repeatedly publishing misleading and inaccurate stories. The complainant considered this to be harassment, and said that the newspaper had not respected his request to “refrain from further involvement”.

20. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 4 as the publication failed to report on the matter with sympathy and discretion, given the personal and emotional toll the situation had had on his family. He said the report was insensitive.

21. The complainant further said the article had breached Clause 9. He said it had identified him and his father in connection with an offence without relevance or consent. He said they had not been convicted of any criminal offence but were subject to a costs order.

22. The complainant also said the article had breached Clause 12, as he considered it discriminated against him and his father on the grounds of race. The complainant accepted that the article did not include an explicit reference to his race., However, he said that he and his father had been represented differently to white tree cutters.

23. The publication said it had amended the inaccuracy about the “fine” a day after the complainant had first made it aware that it was incorrect. It said it had based the article on a press release issued by the council. It provided the press release in question; it said: “Subsequently, at a trial at the High Court in London, the injunction was made permanent, and the people who had undertaken the work, father and son Mr and Mr Bhamra, were ordered to pay the council’s costs of £27,500.” The publication explained that the reporter made an error and accidentally reported that the “costs” payable were a “fine”.

24. The publication accepted it should have contacted the complainant prior to the article’s publication, to give him and his father the opportunity to respond. It said it had offered to include the complainant’s position following his complaint – however, it said it could not agree to publish all the information the complainant wished to be on record, due to legal concerns. This meant that, ultimately it had not published the complainant’s full comment.

25. The publication confirmed it was happy to amend the article to include:

“At the time of publication Mr Bhamra was not offered the chance to respond to the injunction and court costs and we apologise for failing to make this offer. A spokesperson for the Bhamra family has confirmed they intend to appeal the High Court decision. He said: ‘Our intention for the land at Mornington Digswell has consistently been to manage and enhance the area responsibly. We dispute the narrative that 34 trees died under our watch; we maintain these trees were already in a state of neglect due to previous mismanagement before our acquisition of the site. That is why we intend to appeal this decision and have submitted the necessary request as we await an appeal date. Our efforts have been directed towards revitalising this land in accordance with environmental goals.’"

26. The publication said that no version of the article had ever contained the claim that 34 trees had died under the complainant’s watch. The publication also said it would happily publish the outcome of an appeal and that - while the complainant did not agree with the Council’s and court’s findings and statements - this did not mean the text of the article breached the Code.

27. The publication confirmed that the quote from the councillor had appeared in the press release and said it had reported this accurately. It provided the press release, which said:

“Cllr […], Executive Member, Planning, said, ‘This injunction sends out a clear message to people who have no regard for our natural environment and highlights the importance of our Tree Protection Orders. We would always seek to educate and advise before taking any enforcement action. But with Action on Climate Change one of the council’s key priorities, we are 100% committed to protecting and increasing the biodiversity of our borough now and for our future generations.’”

28. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2 – it said the reporter had not attended the property or taken any photographs; it had used an image from Google Street View to illustrate the story. It also said the article had not included any images of the complainants, and that reporting on press releases from the authorities based on High Court proceedings did not amount to an intrusion.

29. In regard to Clause 3, the publication said it had only published one article on the proceedings. It did not, therefore, accept that it harassed the complainant. It also did not accept a breach of Clauses 4, 9 and 12.

30. The complainant said the newspapers reliance on the press release without verifying its claims demonstrated a failure to take care over accuracy.

31. The complainant said his “right of reply” had been edited to align with the council’s narrative. He said that, by refusing to publish his full response, the newspaper had breached Clause 1.

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.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Clause 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime)*

i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.

ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children under the age of 18 who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

iii) Editors should generally avoid naming children under the age of 18 after arrest for a criminal offence but before they appear in a youth court unless they can show that the individual’s name is already in the public domain, or that the individual (or, if they are under 16, a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult) has given their consent. This does not restrict the right to name juveniles who appear in a crown court, or whose anonymity is lifted.

Clause 12 (Discrimination)

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

information.

Findings of the Committee

32. The publication had relied on a press release which reported that the complainants “were ordered to pay the council’s costs of £27,500.” However, the article had inaccurately portrayed the costs as a fine. As such, the newspaper had not taken sufficient care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information where the correct position was contained in the press release. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

33. The complainant said the newspaper had not approached him for comment before the publication of the article. While the Committee did consider the newspaper had not taken care over the accuracy of reporting the costs to be paid, it did not consider it was necessary for the newspaper to approach the complainant for comment prior to the publication of the article. The article reported on the outcome of a High Court trial, and the complainant’s response to the court’s finding was not required to accurately report on what the court had decided. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

34. The next question for the Committee was whether reporting the complainants had been told to pay a “fine” was significantly inaccurate and in need of a correction. The Committee considered the claim that the complainants had been fined was significantly inaccurate, given it has mispresented the outcome of the trial. It also noted that the claim appeared, in the headline which gave it greater significance and prominence. Therefore, the article required correcting in line with the requirements of Clause 1 (ii).

35. The newspaper had offered to publish a correction, the day after the complainant contacted it highlighting the inaccuracy, on page three of the print newspaper and as a footnote to the online article. The Committee was therefore content that the correction was offered promptly. It was also content that the proposed correction set out the original inaccuracy and put the correct position on record - that the £27 thousand figure was not a fine, but costs to be paid to the council.

36. Where the inaccuracy appeared on page three, in the headline, the Committee was satisfied that the correction on page three was sufficiently prominent. When considering whether the position was duly prominent, the Committee first noted that due prominence is not equal prominence – depending on the specific factors of a case, a correction may require greater or lesser prominence than the original inaccuracy. In this case, the Committee took into account the fact that the publication had corrected the online article one day after the complainant had contacted it, had published an apology and had engaged proactively throughout the IPSO process with the complainant’s concerns – proposing to amend the correction, and considering the complainant’s request to consider his complaint letter in full. Therefore, on balance it considered the footnote correction was sufficiently prominent. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

37. The Committee noted that the article did not claim that 34 trees had died on the complainant’s watch. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

38. The Committee noted that the publication had fulfilled the Code’s requirement to correct by proposing to publish a correction. Therefore, there was no requirement for the publication to offer the complainant a right to reply to any significant inaccuracies in the article – though the Committee welcomed the publication’s offer to publish a comment from the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1 (iii) on this point.

39. The Committee noted that the article accurately reported the contents of the Councillor’s speech. Further, the complainant had not explained how this portion of the article was inaccurate. The Committee also noted that newspapers are entitled to publish individuals’ comments, as long as the Code is not otherwise breached. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1.

40. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that the article had not reported on the council’s role in the upkeep of procedural standards and had focused on the outcome of the trial. However, newspapers are entitled to select which information they report, provided this does not breach the Code. The publication was therefore entitled to focus on the trial’s outcome, rather than the council’s conduct, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

41. Concerns such as that the article may be used for political gain are not covered by the Editors’ Code. Therefore, there was no breach of the Code on this point.

42. Turning to Clause 2, the Committee noted that the article reported on a trial which was not subject to any reporting restrictions – therefore this information was in the public domain and the newspaper was entitled to report on it. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

43. The article did not contain any images which depicted the complainant, and the online article included one image of a wooded area. This image did not depict anything private about the complainants, and simply showed a location which was visible on Google Street View. The publication did not therefore require consent to publish the information under complaint, and there was no breach of Clause 2.

44. Regarding the concerns raised under Clause 3, only one article has been published on the subject. The Committee did not consider the publication of one article reporting on the outcome of a civil court case could possibly constitute intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit. There was no breach of Clause 3.

45. The Committee next considered Clause 4. The Committee acknowledged that the article may have been upsetting for the complainants to read, however it noted that the article reported on an open trial regarding the illegal felling of trees. The Committee did not consider that the article related to the complainants’ grief or shock, and there was no breach of Clause 4.

46. The Committee considered the concerns raised under Clause 9. The Clause makes clear that relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story. In this case, the the complainants had been identified as they were the defendants in the trial, rather than because they were the friends or family of someone convicted or accused of a criminal offence. There was no breach of Clause 9.

47. Finally, the Committee considered the complaint under Clause 12. Clause 12 makes clear that references to an individual’s race in editorial content should not be irrelevant, prejudicial, or pejorative. As the article did not reference the complainants’ race, there was no breach of Clause 12.

Conclusions

48. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

49. The print correction, offered by the publication, clearly put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published. The published online correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 03/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 31/03/2025