Re: Complaint by Professor Brian Cathcart (ref: BC/01/2017)

Date of complaint: 20/02/17

Article complained of: “Damian Collins: Mr Nice Guy aiming to get the
media back on track” by Jane Martinson published in the Guardian on
30 January 2017

1. In this decision, Professor Cathcart will be referred to as “the

complainant” and the above mentioned article as “the article”. The former
Press Complaints Commission Code as “the Code”, the Review Panel
as “the panel” and the reader`s editor as “RE”.

The Article

2. The article is an interview with conservative MP Damian Collins who

chairs the Parliamentary Committee on culture, media and sport. The
interview was a wide ranging one; touching on topics such as press
regulation and fake news, to name just two.

The Complaint under Clause 1 i)

3. Clause 1i) of the Code states,

“Accuracy
The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading
or distorted information, including pictures.”

4. The complaint under clause 1 i) of the code relates to the following

sentence:

'Rejected by the newspaper industry, section 40 of the Crime and

Courts Act 2013, a consequence of the Leveson Inquiry into phone
hacking, requires newspapers not signed up to an officially
recognised regulator to pay the costs of libel and privacy claimants
regardless of whether they win or lose.’

5. The complainant argued first, that the Leveson Inquiry was not into
phone hacking, and secondly that section 40 of the Crime and Courts
Act 2013 does not require defendant media organisations to pay costs
upon losing if they have not signed up to an officially recognised

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
1
Page
 regulator. But rather that the court has a discretion to make such an
order against a losing defendant.

Outcome of the reader’s editor procedure

6. The complaint made to the RE on 30 January 2017 was successful. By

email dated 31 January 2017, the RE corrected the online edition of the
article as follows:

“Rejected by the newspaper industry, section 40, a

consequence of the Leveson inquiry in response to the
phone-hacking scandal, means newspapers not signed up to
an officially recognised regulator may have to pay the costs
of libel and privacy claimants regardless of whether they win
or lose. (Emphasis added.)”

7. A footnote at the bottom of the online page states: “This article was
amended on 31 January 2017 to clarify details about section 40 and the
Leveson inquiry.”

8. The complainant also complained to the RE about this sentence: “The

issue is part of a judicial review into the government consultation, with
its supporters insisting its implementation.”

9. That aspect of the complaint was also successful and as a result was
changed as follows: “The issue is part of a judicial review into the
government consultation, with its supporters insisting on
commencement.”

Complaint before the panel

10. The complainant pursues his complaint to the panel but this time under
clause 1 ii) which states,

“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 Commission,
prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.”

Discussion

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
2
Page
11. Although the complainant’s original complaint to the RE was successful,
the panel makes the following observations in relation to the accuracy
aspect of the complaint. First, the panel unanimously agree that it was
not significantly inaccurate to describe the Leveson inquiry as one into
phone hacking. (The panel has the benefit of having Ms Goodman as a
member, who was also a panel member of the Leveson inquiry.)

12. When David Cameron announced the inquiry he described it as being

into phone hacking, and this is how it became generally known. It was
decided to divide the inquiry into two parts to avoid problems of sub
judice. But many hours of evidence were heard on phone hacking during
his review of press ethics and practice in Part 1. The panel therefore
conclude that this aspect of the original complaint did not constitute a
breach of clause 1i).

13. Secondly, in relation to the use of the word “requires” in the sentence
dealing with section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the panel
agrees that the use of that word is inaccurate as section 40 uses
mandatory language subject to exceptions.

“(3) If the defendant is not a member of an approved

regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (but
would have been able to be a member at that time and it
would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the
defendant to have been a member at that time), the court
must award costs [emphasis added] against the defendant
unless satisfied that –
(a) the issues raised by the claim could not
have been resolved by using an arbitration
scheme of the approved regulator (had the
defendant been a member), or

(b) it is just and equitable in all the

circumstances of the case to make a
different award of costs or make no award
of costs.”

14. The effect of this section is that an order for costs will be made against
a defendant who is not a member of a recognised regulator, save in the
two circumstances set out in section 40(3)(a) and (b).

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
3
Page
15. The panel considers that in replacing “requires” with “may”, the RE was
being generous to the complainant. The panel’s view is that replacing
“requires” with “usually” would have adequately reflected, in terms
accessible to the average reader, the effect of section 40. In any event,
the panel observes that they have not be asked to decide upon this
specific issue.

16. Turning now to the issue which the complainant pursues before this
panel under clause 1 ii), the panel is of the unanimous view that in the
particular circumstances of this complaint and, given that the
inaccuracies were not significant, there was no duty under the code to
set out the correction in print or online.

17. Finally, the panel are alive to the issues raised as a wider point of
principle in relation to consistency as between the online and print
publications. However the panel were of the view that this issue need
not be determined in respect of this complaint. The panel therefore
unanimously dismisses the complaint under clause 1 ii).

SIGNED:

Chair: John Willis

Panel member: Geraldine Prudler

Panel Member: Elinor Goodman

Dated: 27th April 2017

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
4
Page