Resolution Statement – 05984-25 Hyndman v belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. James Hyndman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that belfasttelegraph.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Presbyterian ministers 'told not to speak out' after apology from pulpit”, published on 17 November 2025.

2. The article, which appeared online only, reported on a statement that was issued by senior leaders to ministers of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. The statement was described as an “apology for ‘inexcusable’ and ‘distressing’ safeguarding failures”, and ministers were asked to read it to their congregations. The article reported that “The Belfast Telegraph understands that ministers tasked with reading the apology […] have been instructed not to publicly comment on the ongoing scandal”. It reported that “one source” said ministers were “’told by PCI headquarters to read that out and refrain from any other commentary” and that “others” had “described how clergymen and women [had] been ‘effectively put on a leash’”.

3. The article was also shared on Facebook, with the same headline.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said that the headline, and claims that ministers had been instructed not to speak out were inaccurate, and were presented as fact. He said that he was a Presbyterian minister and neither he, nor any other colleagues he had spoken to, had been given such an instruction, including ministers who had commented directly on the social media post shared by the publication. The complainant provided the statement which had been sent to him, as well as its accompanying text sent in an email, which did not contain a reference to not speaking further.

5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the article reported that a number of sources, including members of the clergy and political figures with strong connections to the church, confirmed to it that ministers tasked with reading the apology were instructed not to publicly comment on the ongoing scandal. It said it noted that the church had also made clear that it would not be commenting further on these matters.

6. The complainant said that it was irrelevant that the church had chosen not to comment further – and that this was different to the claim in the headline that ministers had been “told not to speak out”. The complainant also said that political figures would not have received the internal communications or emails sent to ministers and therefore would not be in a position to know what ministers had, or had not, been instructed to do.

7. The publication offered to amend the article to add a sentence which stated, “However, one minister said there had been no such instruction not to comment” and a footnote which read:

This article was amended on (date) to state that one minister said there had been no such instruction not to comment.

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.

Mediated Outcome

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

9. During IPSO’s investigation the complainant proposed the following sentence be added to the article: “Following publication, serving ministers contacted the Belfast Telegraph stating that no such instruction was issued to them.”

10. In addition to the suggested amendment, the publication offered to publish the following footnote:

This article was updated on March 3 2026 to state that following publication, serving ministers contacted the Belfast Telegraph saying no instruction about not speaking had been issued to them.

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

12. 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: 19/11/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/03/2026