Mr Kay complained that the article had reported inaccurate claims about his marriage. It quoted an unnamed source (described in the article as a "close friend") who alleged that Mr Kay felt he was "walking on eggshells" following his public admission in 2010 that he had sent flirtatious text messages to several women. He said that the claims contained in the article (including that he was "worried [his wife] would never forgive him", and that they were "living increasingly separate lives"), had not been put to him for comment before publication.
The magazine stood by the claims, which it said had been obtained from a reliable source. It argued that the comments did not contribute any substantive new information about the texting incident relative to the details that had been previously reported and which were not in dispute. It denied having suggested that the couple were living strictly separate lives in the marital sense. Whilst it did not accept that it had breached the terms of the Editors' Code, it nonetheless offered to publish a statement setting out the complainant's denial that he and his wife were "living separate lives".
The Commission ruled that despite the provision in Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors' Code to protect confidential sources of information, publications cannot simply rely on referring to confidential sources as a defence against complaints about the accuracy of material. Publications should generally be able to produce on-the-record material to corroborate significant claims, or demonstrate that the individual concerned had a suitable opportunity to respond before publication. In this case, the magazine apparently accepted that it had not taken these steps, but sought to defend the piece to the PCC on the basis that the claims were not new.
The Commission disagreed with the magazine's argument, saying that "the article had contained specific, and significant, assertions about the current state of the couple's relationship, two years after the texting incidents". The magazine had not demonstrated that it had taken care over the accuracy of the story, and the Commission therefore found a breach of Clause 1 (i) of the Editors' Code. Since the statement offered by the magazine omitted Mr Kay's denial of the claims regarding his feelings about his marriage, it was insufficient to remedy the issues which had been raised under Clause 1 (ii) of the Code, which makes clear that "A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence". The Commission said it had "no option" but to uphold the complaint.
To read the adjudication (which has been published in this week's edition of the magazine), please click here.
The Editors' Code of Practice can be read on the PCC website here.
Lindsay Nicholson, an editorial member of the Commission, took no part in the consideration of the complaint, and left the room when it was discussed. This is because she has declared an interest in Reveal magazine. The PCC's Register of Interests is available via this link.
