Full IPSO ruling: BENNETT v EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, published 10 December 2015

by **Tony Bennett** 10.12.15 23:02

This was what is called by IPSO a 'mediated ruling', that is, IPSO made no ruling on whether Express Newspapers had breached the Newspapers' Code of practice or not. The parties reached a compromise.

I would like to publicly thank the staff of IPSO for all their valuable help in achieving this result - Tony Bennett.

Full list of recent mediated rulings here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Decision in Bennett v Express Newspapers here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Complaint

Complaint 03363-15 Bennett v Daily Express

Summary of complaint

1. Mr Anthony Bennett complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Express had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a front-page headline “Maddy: Detective did lie about death cover-up”, published on 29 April 2015.

2. The front-page headline referred to an article on page 11 with the headline “McCanns win £428,000 over police chief’s slurs”. The article explained that the parents of Madeleine McCann had been awarded £428,000 in damages against Goncalo Amaral, a former Portuguese detective, who had libelled them in a book about the search for their daughter.

3. The complainant said that it was inaccurate to report that Mr Amaral had “lied”, as the court had not made any judgment on the truth of the detective's claims, and had merely focused on whether or not the detective's right to freedom of expression outweighed the McCanns’ right to reputation.

4. The newspaper accepted that the headline on the front page was inaccurate, and agreed that the truth of Mr Amaral’s claims were not examined during the trial. However, it did not accept that the front page headline represented a significant inaccuracy because the article itself did not report that the detective had lied, and was an accurate interpretation of the judgment. It said the headline had been written by a sub-editor who, in summarising the position of the Portuguese court, had made an assumption that the decision had been based on the truth of Mr Amaral’s claims, which is usually the case in English libel law.

Relevant Code Provisions

5. 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.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Mediated outcome

6. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

7. The newspaper published the following correction in its Amplifications and Clarifications column:

On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said “Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim”. We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the Portuguese court that Mr Amaral lied. In fact what the court decided was that Mr Amaral had breached the McCanns’ right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them.

8. The complainant said these actions resolved the matter to his satisfaction.

9. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 05/05/2015
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/11/2015

by plebgate 11.12.15 6:35

The correction was hardly given due prominence in my view. Why wasn't it on the front page?

by **Tony Bennett** 11.12.15 7:14

plebgate wrote:The correction was hardly given due prominence in my view. Why wasn't it on the front page?

Possibly, had I carried on and insisted on a formal ruling, IPSO might have ruled in my favour and ordered the Daily Express to publish a more prominent correction.

My dilemma was this. If I had carried on and asked IPSO to rule, and had not accepted a compromise, it was possible that IPSO might have decided the appeal against me. If you look at their argument, they said that their article was accurate, it was only the headline that was inaccurate. I did not want to risk an adverse ruling from IPSO - that would have been a setback.

I think I can reveal that the Daily Express initially offered a correction in which they did not formally admit that Amaral did not lie in court.

I was allowed by IPSO to suggest an alternative wording for the correction, and did so.

The Daily Express refused to accept that.

And so it went on, until the moment that the Daily Express formally admitted these crucial words: 'Amaral did not lie'.

Having secured that formal admission, and after nearly 7 months of correspondence, I decided to accept the wording which was published by the Express a few days ago.

by onepoundfifty 11.12.15 9:38

Just registered to say

THANK YOU MR BENNETT

by noddy100 11.12.15 9:45

Fantastic

by whatsupdoc 11.12.15 10:50

We can't thank you enough, Tony, for all the work you have put in battling the Establishment and other legal cases which you have helped get Justice for. clapping1

I get the impression we are up against an almost impossible task when we challenge any of these so-called Independent Commissions and you have steered it well to get any honesty and satisfaction from them at all.

I think the Daily Express could have at least supplied a magnifying glass with the apology edition. laughat

by joyce1938 11.12.15 11:18

It's great that one complete lie has been overturned. I just hope many will see this in paper and begin to understand not all we are given to read IS TRUTH. GREAT WORK, TONY. JOYCE1938

by MRNOODLES 11.12.15 12:35

Well done again Tony.

Their excuse for the headline is err *coughs*. Blame a sub editor who made an assumption.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.12.15 13:20

MRNOODLES wrote:Well done again Tony.

Their excuse for the headline is err *coughs*. Blame a sub editor who made an assumption.

YES.

Does the editor of a national newspaper personally check the front page before it goes to press?

YES.

Did he ask his deputy editor or other senior staff: "Er, are you absolutely sure that this detective lied? - Where is the evidence?"

We shall probably never know.