Resolution Statement – 18922-17 – Woolveridge v The Mail (Cumbria)

Summary of Complaint

1. Anthony Woolveridge complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in article headlined “Driver is charged with M6 speeding”, published on 9 September 2017.

2. The article reported that the complainant was due to appear in court having been charged with speeding and failing to give information to identify a driver when required. It included the dates and locations of the alleged offences.

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate because it had suggested that he alone had been charged with the offences; that his name had been spelt incorrectly; and that the other person involved had not been mentioned. He was also concerned there had been no follow-up article to report that he had been acquitted on both charges in court. He said that the newspaper had not responded to his attempts to contact them regarding this matter.

4. The newspaper made clear that it had not received the complainant’s correspondence requesting the publication of an update. It said that if this had been received, an update would have been published immediately and said it would be happy to publish an update now it had been made aware of the complaint.

Relevant Code provisions

5. 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.

Mediated outcome

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

7. Following IPSO’s investigation, the newspaper offered to publish an update reporting that the complainant had been acquitted of both charges.

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

9. 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: 9/10/17

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/10/17