00370-24 Hewitt v belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Colin Hewitt complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that belfasttelegraph.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Social media cloak gave sick fantasist fake cop free rein to wreak havoc on lives of others”, published on 19 December 2023.

2. The article reported that the complainant had “set up” an X (formerly known as Twitter) account and blog with which he “trolled and harassed bereaved families, female politicians and at least one solicitor” and “detailed police operations using information allegedly given to him by serving officers, and sometimes posted pictures taken inside police custody suites and behind PSNI cordons”. The article featured several screenshots of the posts from this X account, and reported that, “[u]sing the @DonYeeoo Twitter account […,] Hewitt posted:” followed by several examples of the posts.

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1as he had no connection to the X account. In his initial complaint to IPSO he stated that he had never been arrested, charged or connected with the X account referred to in the article, nor had he any knowledge of it. During IPSO’s investigation, he accepted that he had been questioned by the police following a complaint about the X account, but that he received a letter from the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) in December 2022 which said that, when considering the evidence currently available, it had decided not to prosecute him. The complainant provided a copy of this letter to IPSO to support his position.

4. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that, in 2017, following a request by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), the Police Ombudsman commenced an investigation into a number of X accounts, including the X account referred to in the article, on suspicion that serving PSNI officers were behind the accounts. As part of this investigation, it claimed, the journalist who had written the article was contacted by the Police Ombudsman and engaged with the investigation. It said that, during this investigation, the journalist was told by the PSNI that the individual behind the X account @DonYeeoo was not a police officer, but an individual in contact with serving police officers. Subsequent to this conversation but prior to publication, the publication said the PPS verbally confirmed to the journalist that the complainant was the operator of the X account – however, it had no notes of this conversation, and was unable to provide a statement from the PPS to this effect. It said a further anonymous source – which it considered reliable – had also confirmed the complainant was behind the account.

5. The publication said that the complainant had been described by a judge as being “a man without reputation”, and that this, in addition to his background and criminal history, meant that his claims could not be relied upon. It said its view was supported by the fact that the complainant had initially stated he had no connection to the account, before later stating that he had been questioned in relation to the account. The publication said a decision was made by the PPS not to prosecute the complainant in relation to the X account as he was being prosecuted for other, more serious matters. However, it did not consider that this meant it was inaccurate to report that it was the complainant who set up and used the X account and blog. 

6. The complainant said that he had no control over the judge’s words and that this had no bearing on his complaint about the newspaper. He also said that the decision not to prosecute him in relation to the X account suggested there was no merit to the allegation. He also did not believe that there was a further source who had confirmed his connection to the account.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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.

Findings of the Committee

7. The Committee wished to be clear from the outset that its role was to decide whether the publication had breached the Editors’ Code of Practice, rather than to rule on the allegations against the complainant.

8. The article reported, as unqualified fact, that the complainant had created and posted on the X account and blog. This information was based on a conversation between the journalist and the PPS and PSNI, and was supported by a further source. The publication had not taken any further steps to verify that this was the case, nor did it contact the complainant in advance to put the allegations to him, or to put his position on record.

9. Whilst a member of the PPS in a meeting had told a journalist that it believed the complainant operated the account, it had also written to the complainant to confirm it would not prosecute on this basis. Where the PPS had ultimately decided not to prosecute the complainant, and no conviction or decision against him had been made, the Committee considered that the allegations against the complainant were unproven. However, as noted above, the article reported on these unproven allegations as fact, without making clear that they were unproven. This represented a failure to distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact, and there was a breach of Clause 1(iv).

10. Given the serious nature of the allegations against the complainant, that he had “trolled and harassed bereaved families, female politicians and at least one solicitor” and published confidential police material which amounted to a criminal offence, not making clear the basis of the claims were the unproven allegations of three sources represented significantly misleading information, requiring correction. No correction had been published on this point, and there was a further breach of Clause 1(ii).

Conclusions

11. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(ii) and Clause 1(iv).

Remedial action required

12. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

13. The Committee considered that stating as fact the complainant had set up and used a X account and blog for illegal purposes – when in fact these were allegations and he had not been prosecuted in relation to these accounts – was misleading. However, the Committee noted that one of the sources for this claim was a member of the PPS who had been investigating the complainant for illegal online activity, and that the complainant accepted he had been questioned in relation to the X account. Whilst the allegations had been improperly presented as claims of fact, rather than allegations, there was a basis for the link between the complainant and the X account. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge the original misleading information and put the correct position on record, namely that this was an allegation, made by sources, and that the complainant denied the allegation.

14. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. Whilst the allegation appeared in the headline, the complainant was not named in the headline, so the Committee did not consider a standalone correction to be necessary. If the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended to make clear that its position the complainant trolled and harassed people and published confidential police material on X and the blog was based on allegations, rather than a fact, the correction should be published as a footnote.

15. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received:17/01/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/06/2024