A former social worker convicted of intimidating a trader has had his complaint against a Scottish daily newspaper  upheld by the press watchdog.

Archie Beaton complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Press & Journal breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article which reported he had admitted the offence, when in fact he had been found guilty of it.

Mr Beaton told IPSO he had pleaded not guilty to the charge and had been found guilty following a trial.

He was also concerned that the P&J article had reported that “he had harboured a grudge” against the victim, as had been claimed in court.

The Aberdeen-based daily admitted it had not followed its usual complaints procedure in dealing with the complaint after it was brought forward to IPSO.

Itl said that it had received the complainant’s letter, but it had not been passed to the person responsible for dealing with complaints. Instead, the person who had received the letter had arranged for a correction to be published unilaterally.

The newspaper said that its normal procedures for handling complaints had not been followed, and apologised to the complainant. The newspaper had published a correction on page two.

It said that the reference to the complainant harbouring a grudge was an accurate record of what was heard in court, and its total coverage of the case, which comprised several articles, made clear that the complainant had disputed the allegations and that he felt he had been “victimised”.

Mr Beaton said that the published correction had not addressed both his points of complaint, did not include an explicit acknowledgement of error and had not included an apology.

IPSO found there was a failure to take care over the accuracy of the story. As a result, the article under complaint did not properly reflect the court proceedings, misrepresenting the complainant’s position.

While the complainant was concerned that the correction had not included an apology, the Committee noted that he had been convicted of the charges against him, and the newspaper had promptly acknowledged its error and no further apology was required.

The Press & Journal was also entitled to report court proceedings accurately.

But IPSO also expressed concern that the newspaper had never responded to the complainant’s letter, and that the correction had been published without first notifying him.

The Committee welcomed the newspaper’s prompt admission that this did not represent a high standard of complaints handling, and its apology to the complainant.

The complaint was upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.