By Gabriel Princewill-
A jailed rapist ironically complained to press watchdog, Ipso in a dispute with a regional daily over its reference to an alleged victim in its publication.
The dispute reflects an intriguing clash between the demands of media integrity and the revulsion of a complaint made by a vile rapist who can be said to have the cheek to complain after violating the rights of woman.
Morgan Prior complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation(IPSO) after the Dundee Courier reported he had been found not guilty of the “alleged indecent assault of a child”, when the complainant in that instance was 16 years old.
Prior, who was jailed for 40 months after being convicted of indecently assaulting one woman and of raping another, took issue with the coverage on the grounds that the legislation for “sexual activity with a child” stated that an offence occurred when the victim was under 16.
Complaining under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, the rapist said none of the charges related to children, but that one charge had pertained to when the alleged victim was 16, and he was 18 and the charge, therefore, was indecent assault.
Prior provided a copy of the indictment and said it made no reference to a child.
Staunchly defending its reporting, the publication refuted any breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The newspaper claimed to have cross-verified with the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service, which supplied them with a copy of the aggravating circumstances presented to the jury during their deliberations
It said when the aggravations were read alongside the indictment, it became clear that one of the charges related to a child. It read: indecent assault (child, sexual aggravation).
As such, the Courier said it was not inaccurate or misleading to say the charge was indecent or sexual assault against a child, and added that the coverage had made clear this was an allegation in relation to which Prior had been found not guilty.
During IPSO’s investigation, the newspaper offered to amend its online story so that it said “16-year-old” rather than “child”, and also offered to print a footnote correction along with a clarification in
They maintained that this designation was neither inaccurate nor misleading, and emphasized that their reporting had unequivocally clarified that the charge was one on which Prior had been found not guilty.
As IPSO stepped in to mediate the dispute, the newspaper offered a unique resolution to mitigate the matter.
It proposed to modify its online article to replace the term “child” with “16-year-old.” Additionally, they intended to publish a footnote correction in the online article. Not stopping there, they planned to issue a print clarification within their regular column, ensuring that their readers were informed of the accurate nature of the charge in question.
In the world of media, where accuracy and legal complexities often coalesce, the complaint serves as a testament to the challenges journalists can encounter when reporting on delicate matters with nuance and precision.
The realm of press accuracy can be a perplexing battlefield, where the subjects of news stories are far from ordinary and the line between accuracy and controversy is finer than ever.
Press regulator, Ipso often require publications that have erred when it comes to accuracy to publish an apology where they are found to be inaccurate.
It generally opts to accept a resolution where the publication voluntarily rectifies the error, though an apology to a rapist under any circumstances would not resonate with the minds of decent law abiding members of The British public.