The articles - a news report, profile of the complainant, and editorial leader - discussed the complainant's role in relation to the creation of a royal charter on press regulation and noted his successful 1991 defamation claim. The complainant said that the newspaper had seriously misrepresented the position in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice. Contrary to the claims in the coverage that he was "tasked with handling the creation" of the royal charter and "jointly responsible" for setting it up, the Government was responsible for the creation of the charter, and the Queen acted only on the advice of her Prime Minister. His role was only to act as a channel of communication between the Government and the Queen in her role as Head of State.
The complainant was also concerned that the coverage had repeated allegations that had led to the libel action without making clear that in addition to paying substantial damages and costs (which had been noted in the coverage), the defendants had withdrawn the allegations and given undertakings and unconditional apologies.
The newspaper argued strongly that there was a public interest in investigating the complainant's involvement in the royal charter process, which was regarded by many as opaque. Nonetheless, it offered to publish a lengthy correction, in its Corrections & Clarifications column, accepting that it had "overstated and misrepresented" the complainant's role, along with an apology for the "serious errors". The item also included further detail about the outcome of the legal proceedings.
The Commission noted that it was "no part" of its role to interfere with proper press scrutiny of the process of government, and acknowledged the newspaper's "early recognition" that a correction and apology was necessary in this instance. Nonetheless, the three items had contained "serious overstatements, presented as fact" on the nature of the complainant's role. Noting that this was a "particularly concerning case [because] the inaccuracies were central to the reporting; they appeared across all three items; and they directly contributed to the newspaper's criticisms of the nature of the complainant's role and his personal suitability to fill it", the Commission upheld the complaint.
Charlotte Dewar, Director of Complaints and Pre-publication Services, said: "The press plainly has a crucial role to play in scrutinising the activities of government and state, including the Queen and her staff. In this case however, the newspaper had presented as fact claims about the extent of the complainant's role in the royal charter process that it subsequently accepted had been based on a significant misunderstanding. This case shows the particular importance of taking care over the accuracy of published material where it is likely to influence debate on a matter of significant public importance."
To read the adjudication, please click here. The adjudication was published in The Guardian yesterday on page 10.
The Editors' Code of Practice can be read in full here.
