05903-24 Ross v mirror.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Damien Ross complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Nottingham shooting: Three shot after gunman opens fire at 10 people in horror attack”, published on 17 October 2024.

2. The article appeared under the sub-heading: “A gunman opened fire at around 10 people and hit three in horror attacks in different locations of Nottingham with incidents reported in the Bestwood and Sherwood areas of the city”. It then opened by reporting:

“Three victims have been shot after a gunman opened fire at around 10 people in horror attacks in Nottingham.  

People were hit at with a BB gun by someone in a passing vehicle with incidents reported in the Bestwood and Sherwood areas of the city between 5.40pm and 7.25pm yesterday.

Two people were hit in their legs and hands in Bestwood and and [sic] another person was hit in the face by a pellet, said Nottinghamshire Police, who are also appealing to the public for information.”

3. Further to this, the article reported on a statement from a Detective Sergeant at Nottinghamshire Police. This included the following: “We are treating these incidents extremely seriously and are doing everything we can to trace those involved. Patrols have been increased in these areas while we continue with our lines of inquiry”.

4. The article also included an image of a residential street corner. This was captioned: “Three people have been shot in Nottingham”.

5. The complainant also complained about social media posts which linked to the article under complaint. On Facebook, under the caption “Awful news to bring you this evening”, the publication posted a graphic which read: “Mirror BREAKING Three shot after gunman opens fire at 10 people in horror attack”.

6. The complainant said that both the headline and associated social media post were misleading in breach of Clause 1. He said that it was not until you read the article that it became apparent that a “BB gun” was used in the shooting. He said this was not the “horror attack” readers would take from the headline and social media post. He said that he had been misled by the headline and social media post to believe a much deadlier attack had occurred.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said, firstly, that headlines are not intended to be read in isolation, and that the article made clear – in the second sentence – that the incident involved a BB gun. It said the article used accurate terminology, such as “victims had been shot”, or “opened fire”. It also noted that a BB gun is described as an “air weapon” by the Metropolitan Police, and was therefore a gun – it supplied guidance regarding air weapons from the Metropolitan Police, which included the following:

There are certain air weapons classed as firearms. These are dangerous, so you'll need permission to use them.  

Air weapons are firearms if they are 'lethal barrelled'. In other words, if they have muzzle energy greater than one joule (0.7ft/lbs).

[…]

Air weapon offences  

It is an offence to:  

• endanger human life

8. Regarding the use of the term “horror”, the publication defined this term as: “an extremely strong feeling of fear and shock”. It said that, given that three victims had been hit with pellets, and the police had advised that they were “treating these incidents extremely seriously and are doing everything [they] can to trace those involved", it was reasonable to describe the incident in this manner.

9. The publication noted that firing a pellet gun in certain circumstances constitutes a criminal offence, and that an individual had later been arrested on “suspicion of possession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence”.

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

10. Clause 1 does not relate to concerns about the presentation of material, such as that it is sensationalist or scaremongering. Provided publications take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and do not print significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, they can report on events as they consider appropriate. Therefore, the Committee limited its consideration to whether the article and headline were inaccurate, misleading, or distorted, and whether the headline was supported by the text of the article.

11. The complainant contended that the wording of the headline and social media post made the incident appear more serious than it was in reality – he said it was not clear it involved a BB gun until reading the text of the article itself. The Committee noted the headline reported “Nottingham shooting: Three shot after gunman opens fire at 10 people in horror attack”, while the social media post also referred to “[a]wful news to bring you this evening”.

12. The Committee took into account the complainant’s position. It also had regard, however, for the context of the incident. It was not in dispute that a weapon had been fired out of a moving vehicle in a number of locations across Nottingham, which had, ultimately, caused injury – one individual had been struck in the face. The Committee considered this to be a serious incident, regardless of the precise weapon used.

13. The Committee also took into account the possible trauma and fear the incident would have caused for members of the public directly involved, and those in the nearby area. It also noted that it may not have been immediately apparent to those involved that the weapon was not a traditional firearm.

14. Finally, the Committee had regard for the potential severity of incidents involving BB-guns. Although not traditional firearms, they are still capable of causing serious injuries – the publication had put forward supporting information from the Metropolitan Police demonstrating that they can “endanger human life”, and can result in a prison sentence if inappropriately used.

15. In these circumstances, the Committee did not consider the headline or the social media post to be inaccurate or misleading. While it appreciated the complainant’s view, the Committee considered that it was not inaccurate to refer to the perpetrator of the incident as a “gunman”, nor to describe their actions as “opening fire” – said individual had fired a projectile weapon at members of the public. Equally, it did not consider the term “horror attack”, or the phrase “[a]wful news to bring you this evening”, were inaccurate or misleading - given the severity of the incident, and the impact it may have had on members of the public involved, the Committee considered that the newspaper was entitled to characterise the attack as a “horror attack” and “awful news”. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

16. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

17. N/A

Date complaint received: 18/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/02/2025