The complainant maintained that the Code of Practice had been breached because the decision published occupied only half a page, whereas the original article complained about had occupied a full page. She also argued that the publication of other material in the same issue of the newspaper about the subject matter of the article relating to the decision, amounted to a breach of the “due prominence” provision of Principle 10 of the Code.
The newspaper replied that the decision had been published in full, promptly, and on the same page as the original article, in full accordance with the requirements of Principle 10 of the Code.
A decision of the Press Ombudsman, for many reasons, will seldom contain the same amount of text as an article complained of. In the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, therefore, the amount of space allocated to the publication of this decision, at the top of the same page as the original article, and the publication of the decision in full, met the requirements of Principle 10 in relation to due prominence.
