Clauses broken by Newspapers and Adjudicated by PCC and IPSO

The governing body IPSO hasn’t had any complaints of 2017 against The Guardian up to the current date but complaints have been filed on the PCC (Press Complaints Commission) as of 2014 and back further

Date and Newspaper: The Guardian, 10/07/14

Case brought by: England and Wales Cricket Board

Details of the Case: in an interview with the cricketer Michael Carberry, the newspaper had inaccurately suggested that the ECB’s denial of Mr Carberry’s request that it pay for his mother to accompany him on a recent ashes  tour was a sign of managerial insensitivity:

Clauses alleged to have been contravened: Clause 1 Accuracy of editors code of practice

Adjudicated by: Press Complaints Commission (PCC)

Outcome:

Whilst the newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code, the complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following clarification, in print and online:

‘The Guardian would like to clarify that the England Test batsman Michael Carberry ("I'm disappointed the selectors haven't fronted up and spoken to me", Sport, Page 6, Tuesday 1 April) was not alone in not having family members flown in to Australia at the ECB's expense during last winter's ashes tour.

 

Date and Newspaper: The Guardian, 07/03/14

Case brought by: Jirehouse Capital

Details of the case: The complaint was concerned that the newspaper had included a number of inaccuracies about its involvement in Scot Young’s financial affairs and the concern that the newspapers was in possession of confidential information

Adjudicated by: Press Complaints Commission (PCC)

Outcome: The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following statement in the newspaper:

An article about Scot Young, a businessman who was jailed for contempt of court for failing to verify alleged financial losses in divorce proceedings, said that Mr Young had constructed a secret network of offshore companies to hide assets from his wife. In the story we referred to Jirehouse Capital and its principal Stephen Jones, a solicitor, and said that their clients had included Mr Young. Jirehouse Capital has pointed out to us that the article could be read as implying that it and Mr Jones had somehow assisted Mr Young in hiding assets from his wife. That was not our intention. To clarify: on 22 November 2013, the high court found that neither Jirehouse nor Mr Jones had ever acted for Mr Young, nor had they acted improperly in relation to various actions taken on behalf of several of Mr Young's creditors including Project Moscow (Jailed property man hid his assets during divorce, 4 April 2013, pages 16 and 17).

In addition to the publication of a link to the clarification at the head of the online article, the following footnote was appended to the piece:

This footnote was added on 17 February 2014 to clarify the above references to Jirehouse Capital and its principal Stephen Jones, a solicitor. The article says that Scot Young had constructed a secret network of offshore companies to hide assets from his wife. It says that the clients of Jirehouse and Mr Jones had included Mr Young. Jirehouse Capital have pointed out to us that the article could be read as implying that it and Mr Jones had somehow assisted Mr Young in hiding assets from his wife. That was not our intention. To clarify: on 22 November 2013, the High Court found that neither Jirehouse nor Mr Jones had ever acted for Mr Young nor had they acted improperly in relation to various actions taken on behalf of several of Mr Young's creditors including in relation to Project Moscow. ??? (Read through and Figure out what is being said)

Date and Newspaper: The Guardian, 10/08/12

Case brought by: Mr Garbhan Downey

Details of the case: Forty men had been shot in Paramilitary style attacks but the newspaper reported that eighty five men were shot in a year

Clauses Alleged to be Contravened: Clause 1 Accuracy, Clause 2 Oppurtunity to reply

Adjudicated by: Press Complaints Commission (PCC)

Outcome: The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated an undertaking on the part of the newspaper to tag its records with the complainant's concerns, the amendment of the online article, and the publication of the following correction, both in print and online

Date and Newspaper: The Times, 10/07/16

Case brought by: Harris

Details of the case: harassment of a family member and a surrogate mother who apparently stalked judge who took her child away.

Clauses alleged to have been contravened: Clause 1 Accuracy, Clause 2 Privacy, Clause 3 Harassment, Clause 4 Intrusion into grief or shock, Clause 6 Children, Clause 12 Discrimination and Clause 14 Confidential sources

Adjudicated by: IPSO

Outcome: No breach- after investigation (The complaint was not Upheld)

 

Date and Newspaper: The Times, 17/11/15

Case brought by: A man (anonymous)

Details of the case: The article reported that a defendant had been found not guilty of an allegation of sexual assault, she had been accused of rubbing her breasts against the complainant at a party. The alleged offence took place in Scotland, and the trial had also taken place there. The alleged victim was named in the report.

Clauses alleged to be Contravened: Clause 1 Accuracy, Clause 2 Oppurtunity, Clause 3 Privacy, Clause 4 Harassment, Clause 11 Victims of sexual assault and Clause 16 Payment to criminals,

Adjudicated by: IPSO

Outcome: Breach - sanction: publication of adjudication

Remedial action required under Clause 3 and Clause 11 and has to publish a formal apology according to Clause 6

 

 

  19. Having upheld the complaint under Clause 3 and Clause 11, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required, considering the newspaper’s prompt acknowledgement that it had breached the Code, and the steps already taken by the newspaper in response to the complaint. The Committee has the power to require the publication of a correction and/or adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is to be determined by IPSO. It may also inform the publication that further remedial action is required to ensure that the requirements of the Editors’ Code are met.

20. The Committee required the newspaper to publish the Committee’s ruling upholding the complaint. The article had been published on page 21 of the newspaper; the adjudication should be published in full on page 21, or further forward. As the article had only been published in the Scottish edition of the newspaper, the adjudication need only appear in that edition. The headline of the adjudication should make clear that IPSO has upheld the complaint, and refer to its subject matter; it must be agreed with IPSO in advance. The adjudication should also be published on the newspaper’s website, with a link to the full adjudication appearing with the headline on the homepage (as it is presented to readers in Scotland) for 24 hours; it should then be archived online in the usual way.

 

Date and Newspaper: Oldham chronicle, 24/01/12

Case brought by: Karen birch

Details of the case: inaccuracies in relation to the death of her son

Clauses alleged to be contravened: Clause 1 Accuracy

Adjudicated by: Press Complaints Commission (PCC)  

Outcome: Resolved by negotiation by the PCC asking the Oldham Chronicle to Print an apology and a correction of the original statement

A report of an inquest in the Oldham Evening Chronicle (November 10) headlined "Chef's final Facebook message" reported that Mr David Birch had been told he had lost his job. We accept that there was some ambiguity regarding whether this was the case, although this was stated in evidence at the inquest. We also incorrectly reported the location as being in the back garden and accept that neighbours did not help paramedics to revive him. We apologise for any distress caused.