06391-24 McConnell v thecourier.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Lewis McConnell complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thecourier.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Perth pizza shop boss from Dundee groomed three children and persuaded them to send naked photos”, published on 2 December 2024, and an article headlined “Perth pizza shop predator from Dundee spared jail for grooming teenage girls”, published on 7 January 2025.

2. Both articles under complaint appeared online only. The first article reported on the complainant’s 2024 court case. The sub-headline read: “Jurors heard how Lewis McConnell asked the children for sexual photographs in exchange for alcohol”. The article went on to report that a “Perth pizza shop boss groomed three ‘vulnerable’ 14-year-old girls and persuaded them to send him naked selfies.”

3. The article also reported:

“Jurors heard how Lewis McConnell asked the children for sexual photographs in exchange for helping them get alcohol.

The 27-year-old helped two of the teenagers run away from home and met one with the intention of engaging in unlawful sexual activity.

McConnell, from Dundee, denied a catalogue of sexual offending when he appeared at Perth Sheriff Court.

He claimed his Snapchat account may have been hacked.

McConnell, who managed Perth’s Domino’s takeaway at the time but now runs a café in Edinburgh, was found guilty after each of his young victims gave evidence against him.”

4. The article then said the complainant:

“[W]as convicted of coercing three teenage girls into looking at sexual images and compelling them to send him naked images of themselves between January 1 and October 31 2022.

Jurors also found him guilty of meeting one of the girls for sexual activity. An allegation he sexually assaulted the youngster on an unknown road near Edinburgh was not proven.

Claims he met two of the other girls for sexual activity were also not proven and prosecutors withdrew an allegation he had bought alcohol on behalf of the teenagers.”

5. The article then said:

“In a pre-recorded interview played to jurors, one girl, now 17, said she met McConnell through another friend. [….] They communicated on Snapchat and she would ask him to get her alcohol. One evening, he picked her up from her home in Perth and drove her to a shop where they got caffeinated vodka drink Dragon Soop.

“After dropping her back home, McConnell sent her a message: ‘How are you going to repay me?’ The girl, who cannot be identified, said: ‘He then asked me to send him naked pictures of myself.’ Asked if she did, she replied: ‘Yeah. Once or twice.’

The teenager said McConnell sent her a photo of his penis ‘about five times.’ He sent her a series of sexual texts.

On one occasion, he sent an image of his face and made a comment about having to wear glasses. The girl was able to copy the photo – without alerting McConnell it had been screenshotted – and passed it to police.”

6. It went on to report:

“The girl spoke of a time when McConnell collected her and another 14-year-old girl and drove them to locations across Scotland.

“She said when she got into the back of his car, ‘I turned my phone off so my parents couldn’t see my location, because me and (the other girl) wanted to run away’. The girl said they were driven to Glasgow city centre but went on to Edinburgh. […]

After Edinburgh, McConnell drove them to the beach at Broughty Ferry and then to Dundee city centre.

She said he asked for naked photos “kind of frequently” and also sent her photos of his penis ‘frequent-ish as well’.

The court heard McConnell […], has been on bail since February 2023, with a special condition not to contact any child under 16.”

7. The article included a photograph of four cans of an alcoholic drink, captioned “McConnell helped the girls obtain Dragon Soop”.

8. The second article reported on the complainant’s sentencing. The headline reported that the complainant had been “spared jail for grooming teenage girls”. The sub-headline reported that he “asked his young victims for sexual photographs in exchange for helping them get alcohol, Perth Sheriff Court heard”.

9. The article further reported:

“A former Perth Domino’s pizza shop manager who groomed three teenage girls and persuaded them to send him naked selfies has been spared jail.

The 27-year-old also assisted two of the ‘vulnerable’ teens as they ran away from home and met up with one with the intention of engaging in unlawful sexual activity.”

“McConnell, from Dundee, was manager at Perth’s Domino’s takeaway when he preyed upon the youngsters in 2022.”

10. It then reported:

“McConnell continues to deny his catalogue of sexual offending. During the trial, he claimed his Snapchat account may have been hacked.

McConnell, of [address in Dundee], […] must not have any unsupervised contact with children unless pre-approved with his supervising officer. The court also placed restrictions on his internet use.”

11. It went on to report:

“All three victims gave evidence during the trial in November.

On one occasion, he picked [a victim] up from her home […] and drove her to a shop to get caffeinate [sic] vodka drink Dragon Soop.

After dropping her back home, McConnell sent her a message: ‘How are you going to repay me?’ The girl, now 17, said: ‘He then asked me to send him naked pictures of myself.’ Asked if she did, she replied: ‘Yeah. Once or twice.’”

12. It further reported:

“The court also heard how the girl and another victim were driven by McConnell to locations around Scotland. In a pre-recorded interviewed played in court, the girl said she had switched her phone off because she and the other girl were running away from home.

Another girl said she had been in McConnell’s car 10 to 15 times. She said he asked for naked photos ‘kind of frequently’ and also sent her photos of his penis ‘frequent-ish as well’.

McConnell was convicted of coercing the three teenage girls into looking at sexual images and compelling them to send him naked photos of themselves between January 1 and October 31 2022. Jurors also found him guilty of meeting one of the girls for sexual activity.”

13. The complainant said that both articles contained several instances of inaccurate and misleading information, in breach of Clause 1. Turning to the second article under complaint, he said this was inaccurate as it reported that he had picked one victim up “from her home”. He said that this had not been heard in court.

14. He also said the second article was inaccurate to report that his trial had taken place in December. He said his trial had taken place in November 2024.

15. The complainant said that both articles inaccurately reported: he helped two of the victims “run away from home”, and that the jury had “heard evidence” that he drove the girls “to locations across Scotland”. He said this was inaccurate, as it had been heard in court that the girls had already run away from home when they met him. He also said there was no evidence that he had helped them “run away”, and that he had not been charged with any offences related to transportation or assisted removal. He also stated that the article did not sufficiently distinguish claims made by the victims from established facts.

16. He also said the articles inaccurately reported that that he “groomed” three 14-year-old girls, persuaded them to “send naked photos”, and was “convicted of coercing three teenage girls into looking at sexual images and compelling them to send him naked images of themselves”. He said his convictions related to two 14-year-old girls and one 15-year-old girl, and that his conviction certificate listed these sexual offences: causing an older child to look at a sexual image and communicating indecently with an older child. He said that none of his convictions mentioned grooming specifically, or coercing a child to send naked photos. He added that the photos of the victims were not naked photos, and that regardless, it had not been proven in court that he had received any photos from the victims.

17. He then said the articles were inaccurate in their references to him asking “the children for sexual photographs in exchange for alcohol”, and allegations that he had purchased Dragon Soop for the victims. He said the charge of buying alcohol for minors had been withdrawn prior to the jury’s deliberations, and that he had not been charged with solicitation of alcohol in exchange for sexual photographs. The complainant also said that the article did not make sufficiently clear that the claims relating to him having allegedly procured alcohol for the victims originated from witness statements.

18. The complainant also said the reference to his claim that his Snapchat had been hacked was misleading. He said that this had been taken out of context: while he had stated in court that he thought his Snapchat may have been hacked, this was not in relation to the photos. He also said that where the first article under complaint reported “‘On one occasion, he sent an image of his face and made a comment about having to wear glasses. The girl was able to copy the photo – without alerting McConnell it had been screenshotted – and passed it to police”, this was inaccurate as the photo referenced in court was a screenshot of a photo before it was sent on Snapchat, rather than a copy of a photo which had been sent, as the article claimed.

19. The complainant said he was not “from Dundee”, as the article reported, but from Perth. He also said it was inaccurate to report he “managed Perth Domino’s takeaway” at the time of the offences, and at the time of reporting “runs a café in Edinburgh”. He said that had been Area Manager for Domino’s in Fife and Perth and that he did not run a café in Edinburgh at the time the articles were published.

20. The complainant also said the references to him sending a victim “a photo of his penis ‘about five times’”, as well as a “series of sexual texts”, was inaccurate. He said there were no texts, sexual or otherwise, presented as evidence during the trial and therefore it was misleading to report these claims, as they had not been corroborated in court.

21. The complainant then said it was inaccurate to report that he had been given “a special condition not to contact any child under 16.” He said his bail conditions stated that he could not contact the three victims, but that he was not prevented from having contact with other under-16s. He provided a copy of his bail conditions, which stated “The accused is to have no contact with children under the age of 16 years unless supervised by an adult aged over 21 years, unless such contact is inadvertent or unavoidable.”

22. The complainant also said the articles breached Clause 1 because they omitted to mention that there were three charges against him that were not proven, and three other charges dropped during the trial.

23. The publication acknowledged that the second article was inaccurate to report that the complainant “picked [one victim] up from her home”. However, it did not accept that this breached Clause 1. It said the reporter’s contemporaneous notes showed it was heard in court that one of the victims said the complainant “[d]ropped me back home” rather than stating he had picked her up from home, and that this inaccuracy had been caused by human error. It said this was not a significant inaccuracy. Nevertheless, two days after IPSO began its investigation, it amended the text of the article to instead say he “picked her up from a location”.

24. The publication acknowledged that the second article inaccurately reported that the trial took place in December. It said this inaccuracy had been caused by human error, but was not a significant inaccuracy. During IPSO’s investigation it amended the text of the article to make clear the trial had taken place in November.

25. The publication did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had helped two of the victims “run away from home”, and that the jury heard that he drove them to locations “across Scotland.” It said its reporter’s contemporaneous notes from the trial demonstrated that it had been heard in court that the complainant drove the victims across Scotland after they left their homes, and that one victim had said she had turned her phone off so her parents couldn’t see her location. It said the reporter’s contemporaneous notes demonstrated that in pre-recorded evidence, one of the victims had mentioned being picked up by the complainant so that she could run away.

26. The publication also did not accept it was inaccurate to report that the complainant “groomed” three 14-year-old girls, persuaded them to “send naked photos”, and was convicted of coercing them into “looking at sexual images and compelling them to send him naked images of themselves”. It said that grooming is the act of forming a relationship or emotional connection with a child in order to manipulate, exploit or abuse them, and that this was not an inaccurate characterisation of the complainant’s behaviour. It added that court documents showed that the complainant had been found guilty of four charges involving three children, all of whom were aged 14 at the time of the offences, but one of whom would have turned 15 by the time the offending ended. It said the charges stated that he had compelled each victim to “send naked images of herself to him via social media”.

27. The publication then turned to the article’s references to the complainant having purchased Dragon Soop for the girls, and requesting sexual photographs in exchange for alcohol. It said the article reflected its reporter’s contemporaneous notes of the victims’ statements, which said: “he would usually buy us alcohol and drive us about. Got vodka and Dragon Soop”; and “[s]ometimes we didn’t have to pay [for alcohol] he asked us to send him naked photos of ourselves.”

28. It said that, although the complainant had not been convicted in relation to procuring alcohol for minors, there was ample evidence given in court by the victims that he had bought them alcohol in exchange for naked images. It said these claims were distinguished as allegations, as they appeared in the sections of the article regarding the victims’ recorded evidence. It also noted that the claims were prefaced with “jurors heard”. It added that the articles made clear that the charge of buying alcohol for minors had been withdrawn, where they reported: “Claims he met two of the other girls for sexual activity were also not proven and prosecutors withdrew an allegation he had bought alcohol on behalf of the teenagers.”

29. The publication said that the disputed references to Snapchat had been heard in court.

30. The publication said that the complainant had given his address to the court as Dundee, and that its reporter’s contemporaneous notes showed that the complainant had been described in court as “group manager of a coffee shop in Edinburgh” and “Previously manager Domino’s Perth”. It did not, therefore, accept the article was inaccurate on these points.

31. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report the complainant sent a victim “a series of sexual texts” including photographs of his penis. It provided the reporter’s contemporaneous notes from court, which it said demonstrated that one victim’s pre-recorded evidence included details of texts she said she’d received from the complainant – which were sexual in nature.

32. The publication also did not accept it was inaccurate to report the complainant been given “a special condition not to contact any child under 16.” It said this accurately reflected what was heard in court. It added that this reflected the bail conditions the complainant had provided.

33. The publication did not accept that omitting to mention that some charges against the complainant had been dropped and not proven rendered the article inaccurate. It said the articles accurately reflected the complainant’s convictions and sentencing.

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

34. The Committee first considered whether the second article was inaccurate to report that it was heard in court the complainant had picked one victim up “from her home”. The Committee noted that this did not reflect the reporter’s contemporaneous notes, which stated the victim said she was dropped at home. It also noted the publication’s position that this discrepancy had come about due to by human error.

35. Given that the publication had been able to provide contemporaneous notes on request, which were not inaccurate on this point, the Committee considered this had been a simple mistake rather than a failure in the publication’s editorial process. As such, it considered the publication had taken sufficient care to avoid reporting inaccurate information, and that the inaccuracy had arisen despite the care taken. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

36. Where that the reporter’s contemporaneous notes showed that it had been heard in court that the complainant had driven the victims between various locations on multiple occasions, the Committee did not consider the article was significantly inaccurate on this point. It noted that, nevertheless, the publication had taken steps to amend this within two days of the beginning of IPSO’s investigation. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

37. It was not in dispute that the trial had taken place in November, rather than December, and that the second article was therefore inaccurate on this point. The publication had stated this was caused by human error. Again, the Committee considered that this was a straightforward error rather than a failure in the publication’s editorial processes, given the newspaper had been able to provide contemporaneous notes taken at the trial. In such circumstances, the publication had taken sufficient care to avoid reporting inaccurate information. There was no breach of Clause 1(i).

38. Where the date of the trial did not affect the thrust of the story, which reported in detail on the complainant’s trial and sentencing, the inaccuracy was not significant. The Committee noted that, nevertheless, during IPSO’s investigation, the publication had taken steps to amend the inaccuracy. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

39. The Committee then turned to whether it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had helped two of the victims “run away from home”, and “drove them to locations across Scotland”. It noted the complainant’s position that it was heard in court that the victims had already run away from home when they met him, that he had not been charged with any offences related to transportation or assisted removal, and that the articles didn’t make sufficiently clear that these were claims made by the victims rather than established facts.

40. However, the Committee noted that the reporter’s contemporaneous notes demonstrated that it was heard in court that the complainant had driven the victims to a number of locations across Scotland. The reporter’s notes also showed that one victim had stated it was her and another girl’s intention “to run away” and that she “turned off [her] phone so her parents couldn’t see her location”.

41. The Committee further noted that references to the complainant having helped the victims run away were distinguished as claims made by the girls, as it reported: “In a pre-recorded interviewed played in court, the girl said she had switched her phone off because she and the other girl were running away from home”. The publication was entitled to rely the reporter’s contemporaneous notes from court. As such, it was not inaccurate to report – in the context of a court report, and where it did not appear to be in dispute that the victims had made these claims – that the complainant had helped two of the victims “run away from home” and had taken them to various locations in Scotland. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

42. The Committee next considered whether it was inaccurate to report that the complainant “groomed” the victims. It noted the complainant’s position that he had not been charged with any offences specific to ‘grooming’. However, it was not in dispute that he had been found guilty of two counts of coercing an older child “into looking at a sexual image”, communicating “indecently with her”, and compelling her “to send naked images of herself to [him] via social media applications”. The Committee considered that, where ‘grooming’ is the act of building a relationship with a child in order to abuse or manipulate them, the articles were not inaccurate to summarise the charges in this manner. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

43. The Committee next considered whether it was inaccurate to report that the complainant’s charges related to three 14-year-old girls. It noted that charges against the complainant specified that all three victims had been 14 years old at the time the offences began. Given this, the article was not inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

44. The Committee next turned to whether the articles’ references to alcohol and Dragon Soop were inaccurate. It noted the complainant’s position that it was misleading to include this information where the charge specific to buying alcohol for minors had been dropped.

45. However, the Committee noted that the reporter’s contemporaneous notes demonstrated that, in one victim’s pre-recorded evidence, it was stated that he “would usually buy us alcohol”, “[g]ot vodka and Dragon Soop”, and “[s]ometimes we didn’t have to pay, he asked us to send him naked photos of ourselves”. Given this, it did not consider it was inaccurate to report that “Jurors heard how [the complainant] asked the children for sexual photographs in exchange for alcohol”, or to reference Dragon Soop. Further, it noted that the first article – which focused on the trial - reported “prosecutors withdrew an allegation he had bought alcohol on behalf of the teenagers”. The Committee considered that the publication was entitled to rely on the reporter’s contemporaneous notes, and that the articles reflected these accurately. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

46. The Committee next considered whether the articles breached Clause 1 by reporting the complainant “claimed his Snapchat account may have been hacked”, and that the “girl was able to copy the [Snapchat] photo – without alerting McConnell it had been screenshotted” . Where it was not in dispute that the complainant had stated in court – and during criminal proceedings relating to his communications with the girls - his Snapchat account may have been hacked, the article was not inaccurate in this regard. Furthermore, the Committee did not consider there to be a material significance in the context of the story between whether the images had been copied or screenshotted. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

47. In considering whether the articles were inaccurate where they reported that the complainant was “from Dundee”, “managed Perth Domino’s takeaway” at the time of the offences, and “now runs a café in Edinburgh”, it noted that it was not in dispute that the complainant had given his address to the court as an address in Dundee, and that its reporter’s contemporaneous notes showed that the complainant had been described in court as “group manager of a coffee shop in Edinburgh” and “[p]reviously manager Domino’s Perth”. It therefore did not consider the articles to be inaccurate on these points. There was no breach of Clause 1.

48. The Committee then turned to whether the articles breached Clause 1 by reporting that one of the victims said the complainant sent her “a series of sexual texts”, including photos of his penis. Where the reporter’s contemporaneous notes demonstrated that one victim’s pre-recorded evidence included details of texts she said she’d received from the complainant which included a number of photos of his penis, it was not inaccurate to report that this had been heard in court. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that this was not sufficiently distinguished as a claim, however where the articles made clear the details of the texts had been taken from one victim’s pre-recorded evidence, the Committee considered these claims were sufficiently distinguished as such. There was no breach of Clause 1.

49. The Committee next considered whether the first article was inaccurate to report that the complainant had been given “a special condition not to contact any child under 16.” It noted that this accurately reflected the bail conditions provided by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1.

50. The Committee considered whether the articles breached Clause 1 by omitting to mention that three of the original charges against the complainant had not been proven, and a further three had been dropped during the trial. It noted that the articles did make reference to some of the charges which had been dropped or not proven. For example, the first article reported: "An allegation he sexually assaulted [an individual] was not proven. Claims he met two of the other girls for sexual activity were also not proven and prosecutors withdrew an allegation he had bought alcohol on behalf of the teenagers”. At any rate, it considered that, where Clause 1 does not specify that all details of a trial must be included in an article, the publication was entitled to use its editorial discretion in this regard. Where the focus of the story was the evidence heard in court and the charges for which the complainant had been found guilty, the Committee considered omitting several of the charges which had not been proven or had been dropped did not render the article an inaccurate report of the remainder of the charges against the complainant.. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

51. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 13/06/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/04/2026

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.