05759-25 Jones v dailymail.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Kevin Jones complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailymail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “One of Britain's hardest pubs goes up for sale for £150,000 - after it was shut down by police”, published on 28 October 2025.

2. The article reported on a pub being put up for sale. It reported that the pub in question “became notorious as one of Britain's hardest pubs […] before being shut down by police after it became a hotspot for stolen goods.” It went on to report “[t]he bar […] was a favoured haunt of boxers, tough ex-miners, gangsters and steelworkers. [… The pub] was even featured on a TV series about Britain's hardest boozers, such was its reputation.” It further stated the landlord – the complainant – “was investigated by police over the racket at his pub and quizzed about handling stolen goods.”

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 to report the pub had been “shut down by police”. He said the premises had not been closed and remained open pending the outcome of an ongoing licensing appeal. He also said this gave the impression the police had physically shut the pub down, rather than a license being revoked by a licensing committee.

4. He also said it was inaccurate to report the pub was a “hotspot for stolen goods” or that there was a “racket” at the pub. He believed the word “racket” implied an organised criminal enterprise, and there was no evidence to support such a claim. He said the only incident involved a single purchase outside the pub, for which he had accepted a police caution. To support his position, he supplied a warning notice from the police, as well as extracts from a transcript of the original licensing hearing. He said these documents, demonstrated that “police evidence was speculative and not backed by evidence”.

5. The warning notice set out the reason that it was being issued: “The reason for this is based around information that has been brought to the attention of South Wales Police once again surrounding items involved in retail theft from stores / shops within Merthyr Town centre being sold to patrons from within the [pub].” It also stated: “I am continuously hearing information from retailers, members of the public etc that the [pub] is at the forefront where stolen items from the retail community is the place to go if you are a criminal and want to offload the goods you’ve taken. This needs to change.”

6. The police’s warning notice also specified the details of an incident “where a bag full of steaks was taken by a male and an accomplice […] and have attended the [pub] to sell the steaks.”

7. According to the licensing hearing transcript, the police further detailed incidences occurred on 22 March 2025, 13 May 2025 and 20 May 2025, one of which involved “a prolific shoplifter attend[ing]” the pub “to sell stolen goods from Farmfoods”. It also said that, on one occasion, the complainant:

“provided a full and frank admission to purchasing these stolen items. During the interview [the complainant] was shown a copy of the warning notice issued to him by me, relating to the stolen goods being sold to patrons of the [pub] to which he confirmed he had received it. On the 20th May 2025, [the complainant] received a police caution for the offence of handling stolen goods”

8. According to the hearing transcript, the complainant had said: “On the day of the offence, the shoplifter was outside the premises and in a moment of madness, I didn't even look what he was selling. […] Uh wine was in a... I don't even sell wine in the pub. I don't drink. And it was just a complete moment of madness.”

9. The police further noted: “Further to this, there was a report to the police most recently on the 17th of June, of a prolific shoplifter attending outside the [pub], selling a joint of beef which was stolen from Farmfoods.”

10. After the article was published, the complainant appealed against the licensing committee’s decision. He provided a copy of the appeal judgment, which stated “[w]hilst the police speculate that lots [of incidents] may be happening inside [the pub] there is actually no evidence to support this”. It went on to note: “[n]o doubt if the premises remained closed those customers would simply remove themselves elsewhere”. The complainant’s appeal was granted.

11. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to report the pub was “Britain’s hardest pub”. He believed this was not supported by evidence.

12. The complainant said the publication failed to contact him for comment and denied him an opportunity to provide factual clarification. He said the omission of his position made the coverage one-sided and unfair.

13. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2, because the article named him and published details of his police caution. He said the information was published without his consent and there was no justification for the publication of this information, as it had no bearing on public safety or interest.

14. The publication did not accept the article breached Clause 1. It said that the pub’s licence had been removed following a request from the police – which considered the complainant had failed to prevent the sale of stolen goods to the pub’s customers - and that the complainant had received a warning for the purchase of stolen goods outside the pub. Given this, it said it was not misleading to characterise the pub as having been “shut down by police”.

15. The publication also said the pub no longer operated and was being sold, following the decision of the court.

16. The complainant did not accept this, and said the building in which the pub operated had been sold by the freehold owner, but his business had not been sold and the pub did not cease trading. He also said the sale of the building was a private commercial matter and was not connected to the licensing decision. He said the sale, therefore did not show that the pub had shut down or was no longer operational.

17. The publication did not dispute the complainant remained the owner of the pub and the lease to the premises, or that pubs were permitted to continue trading after an appeal against the licensing decision was launched. However, it said evidence suggested the pub had not been opened to customers since the license revoked. It said that remarks by the judge in the licensing appeal indicated this was the case: “I accept the evidence that since the Committee took action there were no other recorded incidents around the Wyndham Arms but there is no evidence that shop theft diminished as a result nor that the persons […]suspected of dishonesty offences had stopped rather than moving elsewhere”; and “[n]o doubt if the premises remained closed those customers would simply remove themselves elsewhere.” It considered these suggested the pub was closed at the time of the article’s publication.

18. The publication also noted that, while the complainant’s appeal was upheld, the judge said that it was “completely inappropriate for the complainant “with a recent conviction or caution for dishonesty to be a licensee of licensed premises". The publication therefore said, while he might continue to own the business and the leasehold of the property, he could not be the personal license holder.

19. The publication also provided a Google search result, which showed the pub was “permanently closed”.

20. On 5 December 2025 – nearly one month after it had been notified of the complaint – the publication offered to add a line of text to clarify the timeline of events, noting that the complainant had immediately appealed the decision, meaning that the pub was allowed to continue to operate after that point It said if the complainant could provide further details, it could make clarification in relation to the appeal and make clear when it ceased to be a going concern.

21. The publication did not accept the complainant’s concerns engaged the terms of Clause 2.

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.

Findings of the Committee

22. The Committee first considered the complaint that the article inaccurately reported the pub had been shut down by police”. The Committee noted the publication referred to the search results to support its claim that the pub was not open and trading at the time of publication. It was also not in dispute that the police had made representations to a licensing committee hearing, and that the police were therefore involved in the initial decision to revoke the pub’s license, or that this was the basis for the original article’s reporting. Given this, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken due care over the accuracy of its reporting on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

23. The Committee also noted that, while the complainant said that the pub was open at the time he made his complaint, it was unclear – particularly in light of the judge’s reference to the pub “remain[ing] closed” in the appeal judgment – whether it had closed for a period following the original licensing decision, before reopening while appeal proceedings were ongoing. Given this, the Committee did not consider that there was sufficient information before it to find that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

24. The Committee then considered whether the article was inaccurate to report the pub was a “hotspot for stolen goods” or that there was a “racket” at the pub. It noted the police warning notice clearly stated it heard “information from retailers, members of the public etc that the [pub] is […] is the place to go if you are a criminal and want to offload the goods you’ve taken”.

25. It also noted the police set out several incidences where the pub was associated with handling of stolen goods during the licensing hearing. It was therefore satisfied that the pub was associated with criminal activities on multiple occasions.

26. The Committee further noted the police stated in the warning notice and during the licensing hearing that stolen goods were sold at or near the pub on multiple occasions, and that the complainant admitted during the licensing hearing that he purchased stolen wine. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider the article was inaccurate to report the pub was a “hotspot for stolen goods” or that there was a “racket” at the pub. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

27. The Committee noted the complainant disputed the evidence given by the police during the licensing hearing and said the appeal judge found the evidence to be speculative. However, the Committee was clear that the publication was responsible for accurately reporting the outcome of the licensing hearing – it was not responsible for the accuracy of the evidence presented during the hearing, nor was it under any duty to carry out an investigation of the ruling. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

28. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concern that it was inaccurate to describe the pub as “Britain’s hardest pub”. The Committee first noted the article reported the pub was “one of Britain’s hardest pubs”. The basis for this characterisation was clearly set out in the article: “The bar […] was a favoured haunt of boxers, tough ex-miners, gangsters and steelworkers. [… The pub] was even featured on a TV series about Britain's hardest boozers, such was its reputation.” The Committee was therefore satisfied that the basis for the publication’s characterisation was made clear, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

29. While the complainant said the article was one-sided, the Editors’ Code of Practice does not address the issues of bias, and articles do not need to be balanced as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

30. The complainant was also concerned that the publication failed to contact him for comment. The Code does not require newspapers to reach out to people for comment, unless this is needed to ensure care is taken not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information. Where no such information appeared in the article, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

31. Turning to Clause 2, the Committee noted the complainant’s name and details of his caution were disclosed in the public licensing hearing. Newspapers are allowed to publish information that has been made public; this information was already in the public domain, so publishing it did not mean that the publication had not respected the complainant’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

Conclusions

32. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 28/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/04/2026