Table Of Content

Paper No. 764 CONFIDENTIAL MINUTES of the COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday 22 June 2016 at 10.30 am Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London EC4M 7LG Present: Sir Alan Moses, Chairman Richard Best Lara Fielden Janette Harkess Gill Hudson David Jessel Matthew Lohn (Items 1 – 12) Neil Watts Elisabeth Ribbans Peter Wright (Items 1 – 6 & 13) Nina Wrightson In attendance: Elizabeth Bardin, Executive Assistant to Chairman Ben Gallop, Head of Complaints Michelle Kuhler, PA to CEO and minute taker Bianca Strohmann, Head of Complaints Matt Tee, Chief Executive Also present: Members of the Executive: Xavier Bastin Ciaran Cronin Niall Duffy Isabel Gillen-Smith Alistair Henwood Robyn Kelly Vikki Julian Holly Pick Charlotte Urwin Hugo Wallis Observers: Item 3 1. Apologies for Absence No apologies for absence were received. 2. Declarations of Interest Peter Wright declared an interest in Items 7 -12. He left the meeting for these items. 3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Committee approved the minutes of the meeting held on 18 May 2016 as a true and accurate record. 4. Update by the Chairman The Chairman thanked all the committee members who made it to the day’s earlier breakfast event on reporting of suicide. External Affairs The Chairman updated the committee on recent events, including speeches given at the launch of the new edition of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, the Media Society and National Liberal Club. 5. Matters Arising There were no matters arising. 6. Complaint 02430-16 Prescott v The Times The Committee discussed the complaint and ruled that the complaint not be upheld. A copy of its ruling appears in Appendix A. 7. Complaint 01450-16 Miscavige v Daily Mail The committee discussed the complaint and ruled that the complaint be upheld. A copy of its ruling appears in Appendix B. 8. Complaint 01999-16 Tam v Express.co.uk The committee discussed the complaint and ruled that the complaint not be upheld. A copy of its ruling appears in Appendix C. Item 3 9. Complaint 02078-16 Tam v Mail Online The committee discussed the complaint and ruled that the complaint not be upheld. A copy of its ruling appears in Appendix D. 10. Complaint 01512-16 Dunn-Shaw v Daily Mail The committee discussed the complaint and ruled that the complaint not be upheld. A copy of its ruling appears in Appendix E. 11. Complaint 01513-16 Dunn-Shaw v Kent Online The committee discussed the complaint and ruled that the complaint not be upheld. A copy of its ruling appears in Appendix F. 12. Complaint 00437-16 Soliman v Daily Mail The committee discussed the complaint and ruled that the complaint not be upheld. A copy of its ruling appears in Appendix G. 13. Complaints not adjudicated at a Complaints Committee meeting The committee confirmed its formal approval of the papers listed in Appendix H. 14. Discussion paper: Complaints Procedures Following discussion it was agreed that an expanded version of the paper would be recirculated to all members for further discussion and agreement. 15. Any other business No other business was raised. 16. Date of Next Meeting The date of the next meeting was confirmed as Wednesday 3 August 2016. The meeting ended at 1.20pm Michelle Kuhler PA to CEO Item 3 APPENDIX A Decision of the Complaints Committee 02430-16 Prescott v The Times Summary of complaint 1. Lord Prescott complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Big John back on terracotta in zero year”, published on 12 June 2015. 2. The article was a political sketch which drew on an interview the complainant had given the previous day. It noted that he is known for his use of language, and described his interview as a “joy to hear”. 3. As the complaint was submitted more than four months after publication, it was considered against the online version of the article only. 4. The complainant said that the article’s reference to his once having remarked, after disembarking from an aeroplane, that it was “great to be back on the terracotta” was inaccurate; he had never said those words. He said that in 2014 he had made public his position in his Daily Mirror column, and the Daily Mail had published a correction that same year. The complainant said that The Times had not contacted him in advance of publication to check the accuracy of the quotation, and the complainant was concerned that there had been a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information. 5. The newspaper said that to the many well-documented examples of the complainant’s “verbal creativity”, it appeared that another had been added for which no source could now be found. It said that public figures renowned for their way with words have always had memorable phrases attributed to them, even when they might not have said them in the way in which they are now remembered. It said that it was genuinely difficult to know what might reasonably constitute taking care over the accuracy of quotations in such circumstances. It questioned whether, for example, journalists should always check transcripts of Winston Churchill’s speeches before quoting something which he is universally thought to have said. 6. The newspaper said that an online search for the phrase complained of produced dozens of results which attributed the phrase to the complainant, the earliest having apparently been published in the Guardian in April 1999, 16 years before publication of this article, and 15 years before the complainant first challenged it. It said that the phrase had been quoted in many profiles published since then, including in a panel of quotations which accompanied a profile of the complainant written by the same journalist as the article under complaint, and published in the same newspaper, in 2006; it was not aware of any complaint about the material at that time. Item 3 7. The complainant had initially raised concerns about the article with the journalist directly, but had written to the newspaper’s previous address and so his letter took some time to be received. As soon as the newspaper knew that the complainant was not satisfied with the journalist’s response and wished to pursue his complaint, the newspaper published his denial in print and as a footnote to the online article. Upon receipt of the IPSO complaint, submitted ten months after publication of the article, the newspaper amended the online article to remove any reference to the disputed quotation, including from the headline. It also moved the published denial so that it appeared before the text of the article itself. It read as follows: “This article has been amended to take account of the following published correction: Correction: We said in a parliamentary sketch (June 12) that Lord Prescott had once, on alighting from an aeroplane, expressed relief at being ‘back on terra cotta’. Lord Prescott assures us that he did not utter these much-quoted words. We are happy to put this on record.” Relevant Code provisions 8. Clause 1 (Accuracy) (i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. (ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published. Findings of the Committee 9. The complainant was alleged to have said the disputed words at least 16 years prior to publication of the article under complaint. During that period, they had been widely published and regularly included on lists of quotations from the complainant, including most notably in the same newspaper in 2006 (in a panel which accompanied a sketch by the same journalist). It had not been challenged on that occasion. Given the passage of time, the newspaper was unable to provide material to support its position that the quotation was accurate, and for the same reason the Committee was ultimately unable to establish what exactly the complainant had said. The newspaper was, however, able to demonstrate that the quotation had previously been widely reported, and for a long time had gone undisputed. While the complainant had written in his newspaper column in 2014 that the quotation had been misattributed, by that time it had already become closely associated with him. The article was a political sketch which characterised the complainant’s use of words as an endearing trait; it was not unkind in tone. In these particular circumstances, the newspaper was not required to put the quotation to the complainant in advance of publication, and the failure to identify the published correction did not constitute a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i). Item 3 10. The complainant is known for his use of language, and the article was a light- hearted look at the phraseology he employs in his position as a prominent political figure. In the Committee’s view, it was not significantly inaccurate or misleading to attribute the quotation to him, without also making clear that he had denied having said it. While the Committee welcomed the newspaper’s recognition of the complainant’s concerns, and its positive responses to the complaint, the publication of his denial was not required under the terms of the Code. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii). Conclusions 11. The complaint was not upheld. Item 3 APPENDIX B Decision of the Complaints Committee 01450-16 Miscavige v Mail Online Summary of complaint 1. David Miscavige complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Exclusive: inside the ‘bromance’ of Tom Cruise and Scientology founder David Miscavige: How they gamble and smoke cigars together and share a special language – but Miscavige secretly recorded the movie star”, published on 2 December 2015. 2. The article reported details of “exclusive interviews” with former members of the Church of Scientology, which concerned Tom Cruise and his relationship with the complainant, the leader of the Church of Scientology. 3. The article said that Gold Base, the Church headquarters, had been Mr Cruise’s “home from home”, and that he had been treated like “Scientology royalty”. It said that a field had been sown with wild flowers to create a meadow for him, and it detailed the efforts the Church had gone to in order to “impress” Mr Cruise’s friend, a footballer, including by “laser levelling a field” to create a football pitch. It also described an occasion when the complainant and Mr Cruise was alleged to have returned from a Las Vegas gambling trip with “bundles of cash”. 4. In addition, the article reported that Gary Morehead, former head of security at Gold Base, had claimed that the complainant had arranged for secret cameras to be installed to record members of the Church, including Mr Cruise. The article also reported that several former members of the Church had made allegations that they had been required to live in poor conditions. 5. The complainant said that the publication had relied on sources who were “disaffected former members”, none of whom had contemporaneous knowledge of the Church. He said the allegations contained in the article had already been disproved or denied, and the publication had failed to report this. Further, several of the allegations had been put to his representatives in advance, and the publication had been informed that that they were completely untrue and should not be published. 6. He said the publication had inaccurately reported that members of the Church had been filmed secretly. In fact, auditing sessions were recorded with members’ knowledge and consent, and the footage was only used as a training aid for prospective auditors. 7. He denied that a field had been “laser levelled out” to impress Mr Cruise’s friend. That friendship only began in 2003, several years after the publication’s sources were dismissed from the Church. Item 3 8. In addition, the allegation that a field had been sown with wild flowers for Mr Cruise had been disproved more than 20 years previously. He said that one of the publication’s sources was on record confirming that “the wildflower planting never occurred”. 9. The complainant also denied the report that he and Mr Cruise had returned from a Las Vegas gambling trip with “bundles of cash”, and that they lived in luxury on the base while others worked in harsh conditions. 10. The publication said that the complaint fell outside IPSO’s remit: the individuals mentioned in the article – with the exception of the footballer – were American; the events had taken place in America; and the piece was commissioned, written and edited by journalists working for its US division. The story had therefore been written to comply with American law and journalistic conventions, not the British Editors’ Code of Practice. In light of this, it declined to defend its story in response to IPSO’s investigation. 11. Before IPSO’s involvement in the matter, the publication informed the complainant that Mr Morehead had told its writer that the complainant had asked him to put a second secret set of cameras in an auditing room, and he had done so. The allegation that the complainant had secretly recorded Mr Cruise was supported by Mr Cruise’s former auditor, and by sources relied upon by the magazine Vanity Fair in a report on Scientology that it published in 2012. 12. The publication said that the story that a field was levelled to impress the footballer was based on information provided by Mr Cruise and the complainant’s former chef. The claim was also supported by Mr Morehead. The fact they were not members of the Church at that time did not mean that they could not have known what had occurred. Similarly, the report about a meadow of wild flowers was confirmed by two former Scientologists, and had been told by a number of former high-ranking members of the Church; it was a story that was well known to the general public. It considered that the source who had previously denied the story had been acting as a spokesperson for the Church at that time. The report concerning the treatment of staff on the base came from three trusted sources, all of whom were former Scientologists. 13. The publication told IPSO that it had contacted the complainant for comment in advance of publication, but had been provided with a response that was “unpublishable”. In response to the direct complaint, the publication had amended the article to include the complainant’s denial. Relevant Code provisions 14. Clause 1 (Accuracy) i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance. Item 3 iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. Note 15. IPSO did not accept the publication’s assertions regarding jurisdiction, and the publication was therefore obliged to demonstrate it had fulfilled its obligations under the Editors’ Code. The publication however maintained its position on jurisdiction throughout IPSO’s investigation; the Committee adjudicated on the complaint on this basis. Findings of the Committee 16. The publication had failed to demonstrate that it had complied with its obligations under Clause 1 of the Code. 17. While it had published accounts provided by former members of the Church of Scientology, and attributed them accordingly, it had not demonstrated the process by which it had regard for the complainant’s previous denials of the allegations, and nor had it explained why it had failed to include his representative’s position, explained prior to publication, that the allegations which had been put to him were untrue. As such, the Committee was unable to conclude that the steps taken prior to publication showed that Mail Online had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. 18. Furthermore, the complainant had contended that the article had contained inaccuracies which – on their face – could have been significant. Where the publication had not provided a defence of the accuracy of the article, or its decision not to publish a correction, the Committee could not conclude that it had complied with its obligations under Clause 1 (ii). The complaint under Clause 1 was upheld. Conclusions 19. The complaint was upheld. Remedial action required 20. In circumstances where the Committee determines that there has been a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or adjudication as a remedy to the breach. In this case, the Committee determined that an adjudication was an appropriate remedy. 21. The adjudication should be published in full on Mail Online, with a link on its homepage for 24 hours; thereafter it should be archived in the usual way. The headline to the adjudication should refer to the subject matter of the article and make clear that IPSO had ruled against Mail Online in relation to the complaint; it should be agreed with IPSO in advance. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as follows: Item 3 Following the publication of an article headlined “Exclusive: inside the ‘bromance’ of Tom Cruise and Scientology founder David Miscavige”, published on 2 December 2015, David Miscavige complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy). IPSO’s Complaints Committee upheld the complaint, and has required Mail Online to publish this adjudication. The article reported details of “exclusive interviews” with former members of the Church of Scientology, which concerned Tom Cruise and his relationship with the complainant, the leader of the Church of Scientology. It gave details of the special treatment Mr Cruise received at Gold Base, the Scientology headquarters; reported claims that some Church members were poorly treated; and said that the complainant had arranged for cameras to be installed to secretly film members of the Church, including Mr Cruise. The complainant said the claims made in the article had already been disproved or denied. Further, several of the allegations had been put to his representatives in advance, and the publication had been informed that that they were completely untrue and should not be published. The publication said that the complaint fell outside IPSO’s remit: the individuals mentioned in the article were American; the events had taken place in the United States; and the piece was commissioned, written and edited by journalists working for its US division. The story had therefore been written to comply with American law and journalistic conventions, not the British Editors’ Code of Practice. In light of this, it declined to defend its story in response to IPSO’s investigation. IPSO’s Complaints Committee found that Mail Online had failed to demonstrate that it had complied with its obligations under Clause 1 of the Code. It had not demonstrated the process by which it had regard for the complainant’s previous denials of the allegations, nor had it explained why it had failed to include his representative’s position, explained prior to publication, that the allegations which had been put to him were untrue. It had also failed to provide a defence of the accuracy of the article, or its decision not to publish a correction. The complaint under Clause 1 was upheld.