Complaint
An article published in the Evening Herald on 3 January 2008 in connection with the death of Katy French ended with three paragraphs under the cross-head “RESULTS”, which outlined the contents of what it described as “early toxicology results.” The complainant, Ms French’s mother, argued that this part of the article was in breach of Principle 1.1 of the Code of Practice (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2.1 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), and Principle 5.3 (Privacy). She also argued that no toxicology reports were available until late February, after the publication of the article in question, and when they did become available they contradicted the information contained in the article.
The newspaper’s response argued that early toxicology results were made available to investigators very shortly after Ms French’s death, that as the article was based on a newspaper interview given by a third party it could not be considered to be comment, rumour, or unconfirmed reports, and that the article was of interest to the public. The newspaper did not believe that it breached the Code of Practice.
Decision
The statements contained in the three paragraphs about which the complaint was made were attributed to “early toxicology results” which were not, and are not yet, a matter of public record. They therefore have the status of unconfirmed reports. However, since there is insufficient evidence to ascertain the accuracy or otherwise of these unconfirmed reports, it is not possible to determine whether or not their publication breached Principle 1.1 of the Code.
Principle 2.1 of the Code provides that comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they were fact. The statements complained about were attributed to an unconfirmed report and were not presented as fact. They did not, therefore, breach Principle 2.1 of the Code.
The publication of these statements, both as attributed unconfirmed reports and in the context of their placing and emphasis in the article as a whole, did not constitute a breach of Principle 5.3.
