Press Complaints Committee (PCC) reject Matthew Offord MP's complaint against the Hendon Times

Following the resignation of Adrian Murray-Leonard from the Conservative Party, local Tory MP, Matthew Offord launched a complaint with the PCC,  stating that the Hendon Times had printed an inaccurate and misleading article. The PCC have rejected the complaint. I will return to this matter later this week, but for now, here is the judgement, without comment from me.
-------------------------------------------------------

HENDON MP Matthew Offord reported the Hendon & Finchley Times to the Press Complaints Commission over an article headed Hendon MP Matthew Offord Criticised By UKIP defector, published on January 20, 2011, which he claimed was inaccurate. The PCC has now confirmed that his complaint has not been upheld, and that the Hendon & Finchley Times did not breach the Editors’ Code of Practice. The text of the Commission’s decision is given in full below:

Commission’s decision in the case of

Offord  v Hendon & Finchley Times

The complainant said that the article contained inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code.

The article reported Adrian Murray-Leonard’s defection from the Conservative Party to UKIP, and contained his view that the complainant – a Conservative MP – had been “uncontactable” since being elected. The complainant said that this was inaccurate: he was available to those who needed to contact him, and had two numbers in the public domain. Moreover, Mr Murray-Leonard could not have resigned as he had not been a member of the Conservative Party for some time. As such, he could not represent the local Conservative Association. The newspaper had been advised of this, and that there had been some incidents involving Mr Murray-Leonard which called into question his status as a credible source, but had nonetheless published the inaccurate and misleading article.            

The newspaper did not accept that the article was inaccurate. While it conceded that the use of the word “resignation” was technically wrong, it said that the crux of the story – that a prominent Conservative had defected to UKIP – was not in dispute. Further, the newspaper was, it said, entitled to report Mr Murray-Leonard’s honestly-held views about the complainant. The journalist had gone to considerable lengths to obtain the complainant’s comments prior to publication. The newspaper subsequently offered to publish a clarification detailing the complainant’s response to the allegation: that he did not accept the claim that he was “uncontactable”; and that he had two numbers in the public domain.

There were several issues to consider here. First, the newspaper was entitled to report that a staunch Conservative had transferred his allegiances to another party, and to quote him on his reasons for doing so. Mr Murray-Leonard’s views on the complainant had been clearly distinguished as such, and the newspaper had not commented on the veracity of his claims.

That said, given that Mr Murray-Leonard had criticised the complainant, it was of course necessary for the newspaper to allow him the opportunity to rebut those claims. The newspaper had contacted the complainant with the allegations prior to publication and had sought his comments on them. It had therefore taken steps to fulfil the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy), which state that the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. The Commission welcomed the newspaper’s subsequent offer to clarify that the complainant did not accept Mr Murray-Leonard’s allegations, and trusted that this offer would remain open should he subsequently wish to take it up.

In regard to the question of the precise date of Mr Murray-Leonard’s “resignation” – and therefore the validity or otherwise of his criticism of the complainant – the newspaper had been able to point to the minutes of the local Conservatives’ Ward Annual General Meeting (which had taken place in late December 2010) where his departure from the position of Ward Chairman had been announced. Further, it was not in dispute that Mr Murray-Leonard had been involved in the election campaign, and had continued to participate in local politics, notwithstanding the issue of when his party membership had formally lapsed. In these circumstances, the Commission did not consider that the use of the term “resignation” was significantly misleading as to require separate correction or clarification. Moreover, Mr Murray-Leonard’s comments had clearly been made in the capacity of someone involved with the Conservative Party, and would not imply to readers that constituents generally should have access to the complainant’s personal details.

Finally, the Commission noted the complainant’s view that – in light of allegations about Mr Murray-Leonard’s character – the newspaper should have declined to publish his claims about the complainant. The Commission could not comment on these allegations (which did not relate to the content of the article) nor could it come to a view that the newspaper should not have published the article.

Reference No. 110331