By Victoria Mckeown-
A police officer mistakenly told a newspaper her house was being searched, even though it was somebody else’s house which was searched
The Lynn News was reported to the Independent Press Standards Organisation after the complaint by Maura Yates.
The bi-weekly News had published a photograph of her house, after being told by an officer it was being searched, when in fact the search was taking place at a neighbouring property.
Maura Yates complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that lynnnews.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Police seize weapons from Walton Highway house”, published on 29 July 2020.
The article reported on a police search of a house in which numerous weapons were found. The article contained a photo of a house with a police car in front of it which had the caption “Police outside the house in Lynn Road, Walton Highway”.
Complaining under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Ms Yates said the story, which reported on a police search of a house in which numerous weapons were found, was inaccurate because it contained a photo of her house.
Misleading Information
Under Clause 1, The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
In the event of any significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
Ipso’s regulations also stipulate a fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies to be given, when reasonably called for.
One requirement not explicitly stated but automatically implied, is for all media publications to do all that’s possible and reasonable to confirm the accuracy of its news stories. Surely, this comes under the expectation of due diligence
Defence
King’s Lynn-based News defended its story by saying, the officer had indicated the house was the one which had been searched.
However, when Ms Yates contacted the paper it had apologised to her, removed the photo online and issued a clarification.
IPSO found the News had said that a police officer at the scene had incorrectly informed its photographer that it was the complainant’s house being searched, rather than the neighbouring property that was subject to the raid.
Ms Yates had disputed the events as stated by the News, but she was not present during this discussion and there was no independent evidence to suggest that the paper had not been misinformed by the police.
The publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information by firstly going to the scene of the raid and secondly making inquiries of a police officer present.
However, the publication had said that a police officer at the scene had incorrectly informed it’s photographer that it was the complainant’s house being searched, rather than the neighbouring property that was subject to the raid.
Alert
Ipso said the publication was alerted to the inaccuracy, which was significant as it inaccurately stated that the complainant’s property contained weapons and had been raided by the police, it necessitated the publication of a correction under Clause 1.
The failing in this story was due to the negligence of the police officer. The officer in question should have taken due care to ensure it delivered accurate information to the newspaper. The newspaper was correctly vindicated by press regulator Ipso, but the damage has already been done.
Not everybody who saw the original erroneous information contained in the first article would have seen the correction which was later published. The police officer should have been reprimanded by the police force in question, and should have been named for the error in question. Police officers like every responsible body, have a duty to take due care and should be held to account when they fail to do so.