An "inaccurate and intrusive" inquest report into the death of a journalist has been cleared of breaking any newspaper guidelines.

The Wood and Vale newspaper reported on the death of journalist Andrew Dickson in March, and covered the inquest - which mentioned his alleged alcoholism.

A close friend of Andrew complained that its story "Tributes to top Telegraph man" was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) and intrusive at a time of grief in breach of Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief and shock) of the newspaper Code of Practice. She also complained under Clauses 3 (Privacy) and 11 (Misrepresentation) of the Code.

Irene Shubik said that he had suffered from lung cancer and severe intestinal problems - but the coroner had concluded that he had in fact died from a fall and his death was accidental. The death certificate listed alcohol only as a secondary cause of death.

In her complaint to the Commission she objected to what she saw as the article's insensitivity and to a number of inaccuracies, including the suggestion that Andrew was an alcoholic, and the implication that he was somehow 'down and out'.

She also complained under Clause 11 that the article had included details from a report she had submitted to the coroner, and which she had understood would remain confidential.

She claimed the article was misleadingly presented to make it appear that she had spoken directly to the newspaper. And she complained that the journalist's approach to her - which focused on whether or not the deceased was an alcoholic - was insensitive, something she felt was compounded by the editor's subsequent attempt to contact her.

The Commission, emphasising that a judgement on this issue was "necessarily subjective", did not agree that the report was so insensitive as to breach Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Code - a section which specifically protects the rights of newspapers to report such proceedings.

It also found no breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy) or Clause 11 (Misrepresentation).

The editor told the Commission that the complainant had initially been helpful once the journalist had contacted her, but she had become agitated when some of the details from the inquest were discussed.

The deputy editor ensured that the headline for the story was appropriately sensitive and that some material from Andrew's career was included.

The Commission was also told that having received a letter from her after publication, the editor had telephoned the complainant in order to discuss her concerns, although the conversation was not a success as a result of the complainant's distress.

Regarding publication of the article itself, the editor told the Commission that the article in question was based on an agency report which provided direct quotations from the inquest and the coroner which made reference to alcohol and alcoholism.

He said the complainant's statement had been read out in court, and the newspaper was therefore entitled to publish it, something it had done accurately.

He added that the paper hadn't considered a published apology to be appropriate in this case - but was happy to write to the complainant with a full explanation and to correct any inaccuracies in print if any arose.

In its adjudication the Commission said it was pleased that the editor had offered to write to a personal letter to the complainant.

It said: "While it acknowledged the complainant's concerns about the quality of the agency reporting, it did not find that the article contained any significant inaccuracies in breach of the Code.

"In particular, the newspaper's reference to alcoholism was clearly based on comments made by the coroner himself, who was quoted as a named source in the article.

"It was also not in dispute that alcohol had played a role in the tragic death of Mr Dickson and the Commission noted that the complainant's position - that Mr Dickson had cut back on his drinking, and did not drink every day - was contained in the article."

Finally, as the complainant's statement had been apparently been read in open court, there was no breach of Clauses 11 (Misrepresentation) or 3 (Privacy).

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index