A man banned from contacting a shipyard’s managing director complained to the press watchdog after a regional daily described him as a “submarine enthusiast.”

The North West Evening Mail reported Shaun Williams had been given a restraining order barring him from contacting the shipyard’s MD or any of its employees, and had been charged with harassment after allegedly sending a series of letters to the managing director as well as allegations that he had posted “insulting and abusive posts” about him and other directors online.

The NWEM said Mr Williams had been due to stand trial on the charge at Furness Magistrates’ Court, but the Crown Prosecution Service “struck a deal” with his solicitor to dispose of the matter by way of a “civil restraining order and without criminal charges”.

A statement was carried by Mr Williams in which he maintained his innocence, while a follow-up article revealed he had appealed his sentence.

A third story reported that the complainant had his appeal against the restraining order dismissed by a judge at Preston Crown Court.

Complaining to the Independent Press Standards Organisation under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Mr Williams denied that he was a “submarine enthusiast”, claiming he was a professional who ran a recognised defence brand called ‘British Special Projects’.

He further denied that he “bombarded” the MD with letters, and said it was inaccurate for the headline of the second article to report that he had “harassed” the managing director, and to report that he had been “sentenced”, as he had not been convicted of any offence – denying there had been a CPS deal over his case.

Mr Williams also said that his appeal was heard in Carlisle Crown Court, not Preston, and that it was not dismissed, but was abandoned as the judge realised it had been listed in error.

The NWEM responded that in order for a restraining order to be imposed without a trial taking place, the complainant had to agree to accept the restraining order, which was why the article used the phraseology that a deal had been struck. It provided evidence from the CPS that the complainant had appealed against the restraining order at both the Magistrates’ Court and Crown Court.

The newspaper said that the magistrates had found that there were no grounds to revoke the order and the application was refused, and that the appeal to the Crown Court was dismissed. However, it said that the use of the word “sentence” in reference to the order was not appropriate in the circumstances, and amended the second and third articles to reflect this point.

IPSO found no breach of Code, and the complaint was not upheld.

The full adjudication can be read here.

Other recent IPSO cases involving regional newspapers include:

MacMaster v Daily Record

Frank MacMaster complained that the Daily Record breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) in an article which reported calls for the firm who run Scotland’s railways, ScotRail, to be replaced.

Mr MacMaster said that while the figures reported for delays and cancellations appeared to be accurate, they were misleading because they only included services that terminated at the stations mentioned in the article, and not those that made intermediate stops.

He also said that it was inaccurate to report that one in five services were cancelled, claiming the true figure was one in 150, and that the Glasgow-based Record failed to make clear that the responsibility for Scotland’s railway is shared between ScotRail, which operates the majority of the services, and Network Rail, which is responsible for the track and other infrastructure.

The Record responded that the figures published in the article had come from a table titled “Annual On Time Arrival at Destination” published by ScotRail.

It said it was not misleading to report the figures for late trains as outlined in the table, but offered to add a line to the online article to make clear the basis of the figure. It also said that while it accepted that it was inaccurate to report that one in five trains were cancelled, that figure had been published by ScotRail, and the newspaper had been entitled to rely on what the company had said.

The Record added that the publication of this figure was not significantly misleading in the context of the article as a whole. Nonetheless, it removed the reference from the online article, and offered to add a footnote to the article clarifying the change.

The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.

Raftery v The Sentinel

Kevin Raftery complained that The Sentinel, Stoke, breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) in an article which reported on the closure of Alsager Court care home.

Mr Raftery, whose mother had been a resident at Alsager Court when its closure had been announced, said that the reported notice period of 12 weeks was inaccurate.

He provided a letter, dated 28 November 2016, which he had received from the care home, informing him that the letter constituted one month’s notice of termination of his mother’s resident contract.

The Sentinel provided a letter, which it said had been sent to another resident at Alsager court on the same date, informing them that the letter constituted 12 weeks notice of termination of their resident contract.

The paper said that this information was then reported in the article, in the belief that the letter was a standardised document sent to all residents.

The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.