Resolution Statement – 05868-25 Clark v Daily Record

Summary of Complaint

1. John Clark complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Record breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Fisherman's amputation hell at sea”, published on 22 October 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page 18 - reported: “A PROBE has been launched after an injured fisherman had to have his arm amputated while at sea after a horror accident”. It went on to report that the vessel on which the incident took place had “featured on TV reality show Trawlermen”. The article then reported that the crew man was “airlifted following the drastic surgery and is recovering in hospital.”

3. The article also appeared online under the headline “Probe launched after fisherman’s arm amputated in horror accident aboard Scots vessel”. This version of the article reported that a “probe ha[d] been launched after a fisherman’s arm was amputated in a horror accident aboard a Scots vessel”. It then reported that the “vessel was back fishing off Orkney on Monday, according to satellite trackers”. 

4. It went on to report:

"2022, Reliance III’s skipper, John Clark, said he had invited camera crews filming BBC show Trawlermen on board during treacherous winter months at sea to show them ‘what fishing is really like and why it can be so dangerous’. Clark, who started fishing almost 40 years ago, is a director of the Reliance Fishing Company. The Record approached the skipper for comment but did not receive a response.”

5. The complainant – who was the skipper in question - said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said that the article inaccurately reported the nature of the incident which took place on the fishing vessel. He disputed that the injured individual had their arm amputated in a “drastic surgery” following their injury - whilst still at sea. He disputed the use of the term “accident”.

6. The complainant also said that it was inaccurate to report that his vessel had been fishing off Orkney on the Monday following the incident and that the article had incorrectly implied that he was the skipper in charge of the vessel at the time of the incident. The complainant also disputed that he had been approached for comment.

7. The complainant said that the online version of the article breached Clause 2 as it included details related to his career and appearance on the TV show Trawlermen, which he considered irrelevant to the incident and an intrusion into his private life.  

8. The publication said it accepted that the line in the online article about the vessel fishing off Orkney was inaccurate and removed it. It also published a footnote correction which read:

A previous version of this article reported that 'The vessel was back fishing off Orkney on Monday, according to satellite trackers.' In fact, the exact location of the vessel at that time was unknown. We are happy to clarify this and have amended the article accordingly.   

9. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that a crew member had had their arm amputated on board the vessel or to describe it as an “accident”.     

10. The publication said that the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB), which investigates accidents involving UK vessels, had published information relating to the matter in a table of current investigations which read:

“Amputation of a crew member’s limb on board a UK registered fishing vessel, 50nm east of Fair Isle, Scotland.”  

11. The publication said that this table had not been updated and that it was entitled to rely on such sources of information.

12. The publication said that the information relating to the complainant’s career and his appearance on the TV show had been shared publicly online and as such it did not consider that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy over this information. It also said that the article had not reported that the complainant was the skipper on duty at the time of the incident. It said the article only reported that he was the skipper of the vessel, which it said was the case whether or not he was on duty at the time of the incident.

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.

Mediated Outcome

13. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

14. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to amend the article to replace the word “accident” with the word “incident” and to remove the word “amputation” and instead report that the man’s limb was severed.

15. The publication also offered to publish a statement from the complainant regarding the incident.       

16. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.

17. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 05/11/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/01/2026