20757-23 Barratt v lincolshirelive.co.uk

Summary of complaint

1. Craig Barratt complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that lincolnshirelive.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Two Lincoln police officers sacked after using excessive force against member of public”, published on 10 October 2023.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported the outcome of misconduct proceedings held by Lincolnshire Police in relation to the alleged misconduct of the complainant, a former Police Constable. The subheading of the article reported that a “misconduct hearing was held on Monday, October 9 at Lincolnshire Police Headquarters”. The article also said that “two Lincoln police officers ha[d] been sacked after using excessive force against a member of the public”, and that “the misconduct hearing was held on Monday, October 9 at Lincolnshire Police Headquarters”. It went on to report that “a further review of the case found that it was not in the public interest to pursue findings against now former officers Police Constable Craig Barratt[…]”.

3. Prior to the complaint being made to IPSO, the article was amended by the publication. The headline of the article – “Two Lincoln police officers sacked after using excessive force against member of public” – was amended to read: “Misconduct hearing into Lincolnshire Police officers discontinued”. The following sentence was also removed: “[t]wo Lincoln police officers have been sacked after using excessive force against a member of the public”. The updated article did not include any reference to the complainant’s dismissal or alleged use of force. The article was amended within two hours of its publication, after Lincolnshire Police contacted the publication directly to make it aware that the article may be inaccurate.

4. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as he had not been dismissed from Lincolnshire Police. He added that, in fact, there was no misconduct hearing – the case had been dropped prior to the hearing taking place. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate as there was no case to answer for the allegation regarding the excessive use of force; and that Lincolnshire Police had confirmed it had not communicated to the publication that the complainant was dismissed for excessive force. The complainant said the article was live on social media for a number of hours, though IPSO was not provided with a link to the social media post in question or a copy of it.

5. The publication accepted a breach of Clause 1 in relation to the article inaccurately reporting that the complainant had been “sacked”. It said this error had occurred because a journalist had misunderstood a reference in a press release to the complainant being a 'former' police officer, and had mistakenly understood this to mean that he had been dismissed. It provided a copy of the press release in question to IPSO. This was dated 10 October 2023 and said:

“A misconduct hearing was held on 9 October at Force Headquarters for former Police Constable Craig Barratt, […]. After a further review of the case, it was decided that as they [were] now former officers, it was not in the public interest to pursue findings against either Mr Barratt or […]. The proceedings were therefore discontinued”.

6. Upon receipt of the complaint from IPSO, the publication contacted the complainant and informed him that the article had been amended within two hours of it being published. In addition to this, on 27 October 2023, 16 days after receiving the complaint from IPSO, the publication informed the complainant that it would be happy to publish a standalone correction. It said that this would appear on the website homepage for 24 hours and would be archived in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications page indefinitely. The publication did not consider it was appropriate or necessary for the standalone correction and apology to appear on a social media platform, as it disputed the complainant’s position that the article had appeared on social media.

7. The publication informed the complainant on 21 November 2023 that the following standalone apology and correction had been published on its homepage:

“Craig Barratt and […] – A correction and apology.

A version of our article 'Two Lincoln police officers sacked after using excessive force against member of public', published on 10 October, incorrectly reported that former Police Constable Craig Barratt and former Police Constable[…] had been sacked

following a misconduct hearing in respect of their alleged use of force against a member of the public.

In fact, both officers had left the police force before the misconduct hearing took place. The outcome of that hearing was that it was not in the public interest to pursue findings against Mr Barratt and […] as they were no longer police officers.

We are happy to clarify this and apologise for this error”.

8. The publication considered that this was sufficient remedial action under the Editors’ Code, and asked IPSO to close the complaint as satisfactorily remedied.

9. The complainant said he did not consider this was a satisfactory remedy to the complaint – he considered the apology published was “a hidden apology” and that, because it had been published on the publication’s website, not social media accounts, it meant that a limited audience would have seen the correction and apology compared to the volume of people who saw the original article. The complainant did not consider that the publication had reported on this story ethically and truthfully; and did not consider that they were aware of the full circumstances behind how the story came to be written. The complainant also noted that the article had impacted his work and reputation.

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

Relevant IPSO Regulation

40. If a Regulated Entity offers a remedial measure to a complainant which the Regulator or, if applicable, the Complaints Committee considers to be a satisfactory resolution of the complaint, but such measure is rejected by the complainant, the Regulator or, if applicable, the Complaints Committee shall notify the complainant of the same and that, subject to fulfilment of the offer by the Regulated Entity, it considers the complaint to be closed and a summary of the outcome shall be published on the Regulator's website.

Findings of the Committee

10. The publication requested that IPSO consider whether the remedial measures it had offered amounted to a satisfactory resolution of the complaint – in line with the provisions in Regulation 40 of IPSO’s Regulations – and whether the complaint could be closed. The Committee considers such requests on a case-by-case basis.

11. In this case, the Committee did not consider that the application of Regulation 40 was appropriate. In its view, there was a public interest in it considering the complaint fully and publishing a reasoned decision. It considered this to be the case in light of the fact that the original inaccurate information related to a police misconduct hearing, a matter of clear public interest, and because a full IPSO decision would be able to examine the factors which lead to the publication of the inaccurate article in a manner which would not be possible should the complaint be closed and a summary of the outcome published on IPSO’s website. The Committee noted that the publication of such decisions is an important element of IPSO’s regulatory function, and that any decision not to fully consider a complaint, and to close it as having been satisfactorily remedied, must be weighed carefully given the public interest in IPSO making a full and reasoned decision.

12. The Committee therefore considered whether the article inaccurately reported that the complainant had “been sacked” after appearing before a misconduct panel that determined whether he had “used excessive force against a member of the public”. Both parties accepted that this was not accurate; the complainant had not been sacked for using excessive force against a member of the public and the misconduct proceedings had been discontinued without a finding being made against the complainant to this effect. The question for the Committee was whether the publication had taken care not to report inaccurate information on this point.

13. In deciding whether care had been taken, the Committee was mindful of the press release which had acted as the basis for the article. This stated that, “[a]fter a further review of the case, it was decided that as they [were] now former officers, it was not in the public interest to pursue findings against […] Mr Barratt”. As the complainant was no longer a Police Constable at the time the proceedings were discontinued, he was not dismissed after using excessive force against a member of the public after the conclusion of a misconduct hearing, and the article did not accurately reflect the information contained within Lincolnshire police press release in relation to the misconduct hearing and its outcome: the full hearing had not taken place, and it had not resulted in the complainant being “sacked” for the use of “excessive force”. Where the publication had not been able to show that any further care had been taken over the accuracy of this claim within the article; where it did not adequately explain why describing the officer as ‘former’ could be interpreted as being sacked for using excessive force; and where the publication did not explain why the reporter did not take notes when police called to raise issues over the accuracy of the story, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

14. This inaccurate information was significant, given that it related to misconduct hearings against police officers – a matter of public interest – and, in reporting that the complainant had been “sacked”, would lead readers to believe that a panel had found that he had used excessive force, when in fact it did not make such a finding. Therefore, a correction was required, under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

15. The Committee next considered whether the correction published was sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii), which requires that significantly inaccurate information is corrected promptly and with due prominence. The Committee considered the standalone correction was sufficiently prominent, taking into account the fact that the information appeared in the article’s headline. While the complainant had said that the inaccurate information had appeared on social media, the publication disputed this and – absent a link to, or a copy of, the social media post in question – the Committee did not consider that there were grounds to require the publication of a correction on social media.

16. Turning next to the wording of the correction, the Committee did not consider the wording of the correction put the full correct position on record. While it made clear the complainant had not been “sacked" it did not address the inaccuracy regarding the presentation of the claim, as fact, that a tribunal had found that the complainant had used “excessive force against [a] member of the public”. Therefore, the wording of the correction raised a breach of Clause 1 (ii), where it did not address each inaccuracy within the article.

17. The Committee also did not consider that the correction, offered on 27 October 2023 and published on 21 November 2023, was sufficiently prompt, as there was a delay of six weeks between when the publication was made aware of the inaccuracy by Lincolnshire police and the eventual publication of the correction, and a delay of sixteen days between being made aware of the complainant’s specific concerns and the offer to publish a correction. Given that the correct position was outlined in the original press release, and the publication had been contacted by the police on the day of the article’s publication, the Committee did not consider these delays to be proportionate. Therefore, there was a further breach of Clause 1(ii) with regard to the promptness of the remedial action.

Conclusions

18. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i) and (ii).

Remedial Action Required

19. 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.

20. The article inaccurately reported that the complainant was “sacked after using excessive force against [a] member of [the] public”. It considered this inaccurate information to be significant, given the public interest in the matter being reported on and the fact that the complainant had not been found to have used excessive force. The Committee considered the correction offered was sufficiently prominent, however, it was not prompt – therefore, there had been a breach of 1 (ii). However, the Committee noted that, while the correction had not been prompt, it had been published in a sufficiently prominent position; and had included an apology. It further noted that the inaccuracy, while significant, had only been online for less than two hours and therefore its reach would have been relatively limited. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy.

21. The correction that had been published acknowledged that the publication had inaccurately reported that the complainant was “sacked”, and informed readers “that both officers had left the police force before the misconduct hearing took place”. However, the Committee was not satisfied with the wording of the correction, as it did not make clear that it had not been proven that the complainant had used excessive force against a member of the public. Therefore, a correction should be published to set out the original inaccurate information, and make clear the correct position: namely, that the article inaccurately reported that the complainant was “sacked” for use of “excessive force”. The correction should make clear that a misconduct panel had not found that the complainant had used “excessive force” and was “sacked” because of this. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been amended following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

22. The Committee then considered the placement of the correction. Where the original placement of the correction – a standalone correction, published online – was sufficient for the purposes of Clause 1 (ii), the Committee considered that this was the appropriate location for the amended correction.

Date complaint received: 11/10/2023

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 26/06/2024