Recent resolved complaints by the Press Complaints Commission.
Jirehouse Capital v The Guardian
Complaint
Jirehouse Capital complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply), Clause 3 (Privacy), and Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant was concerned that the newspaper had included a number of inaccuracies about its involvement in Scot Young’s financial affairs, including an incorrect statement that he was a client of the firm. It did not consider that it had been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations included in the article, and was concerned that the newspaper had been in possession of confidential information.
Resolution
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. (Cl 1, 2, 3 & 4)
Jirehouse v Evening Standard
Complaint
Jirehouse Capital complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply), Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Harassment), Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge), and Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant was concerned that the newspaper had included a number of inaccuracies about its involvement in Scot Young’s financial affairs. It did not consider that it had been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations included in the article, and was concerned that the newspaper had clearly been in possession of confidential information.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following correction:
An article of 21 May (‘A new twist in the capital’s most bitter divorce battle’) said that Stephen Jones, a lawyer from Jirehouse Capital, had been accused in court by lawyers acting for Michelle Young of helping her husband, Scot Young, to conceal his wealth. The accusation had not been made in court at that time and, although it was made in later proceedings relating to the Youngs’ divorce, Mr Jones was cleared by the judge of any impropriety. Jirehouse Capital, which acts for some of Mr Young’s creditors (though not Bank of Scotland or the Malaysian government) has asked us to reiterate that Mr Young is not their client. We are happy to set the record straight. (Cl 1, 2, 3, 4 &10)
Magnanti v The Times
Complaint
Dr Brooke Magnanti, who is also known as Belle de Jour, complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published misleading information in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant considered the assertion that she was a “suspected fantasist” incorrectly implied she had never been a sex worker. She said that this inaccurate claim reflected an allegation made by an ex-boyfriend in the press that she had not been a sex worker. She strongly denied this allegation, and pointed out that there was publicly available information to demonstrate she had indeed been a sex worker.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the alteration of the online article to read that the complainant “has been accused of being a fantasist”. (Cl 1)
Davies v The Sun
Complaint
Mrs Jennie Davies complained to the Press Complaints Commission that reporters working on behalf of the newspaper had breached the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Harassment) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant said that the newspaper had made excessive approaches to family members, neighbours, associates and previous addresses for her father, Johnny Briggs, in order to seek comment on an incorrect tip-off that he had died. She said that the reporters were told on a number of occasions, including by the ITV press office, that he was on holiday in Florida and unlikely to have died, but persisted in seeking comment from other individuals. In particular, the complainant’s elderly grandmother, who was the mother of Mr Briggs’ ex-wife, found the reporter’s approach and suggestion that her former son-in-law might be dead deeply distressing.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated a private letter of apology from the editor to the complainant, apologising for the distress caused to her and her family by the newspaper’s enquiries. (Cl 1, 3, 4 and 5)
Association of Chief Police Officers v Daily Mail
Complaint
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published inaccurate information in an online version of an article in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainants said that the newspaper had incorrectly stated “[ACPO] sells Police National Computer information for up to £70, even though it costs just 60p to access”.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the alteration of the article and the publication of the following apology:
A previous version of this article said that ACPO sells Police National Computer information for £70 when it costs just 60p to access. In fact, the police certificates to which this refers are produced by the ACPO Criminal Records Office (ACRO) at a cost of £37.26. A standard production service costs the customer £45, with an express service available at £80. We apologise for the error. ACPO say that any profits generated are used to enhance record keeping on behalf of the Police Service. (Cl 1)
Kellard v The Sun
Complaint
Mr Bradley Kellard complained to the Press Complaints Commission about an article which he considered to have been inaccurate and misleading in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. While the article reported that the complainant was divorcing his wife, the complainant said that he had never been married.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the removal of the online article (Cl 1).
