AddThis SmartLayers

Press watchdog rejects complaint by DJ’s ‘wifebeater’ ex-partner

derek-mitchellThe press watchdog has rejected a complaint by the former husband of a Scottish DJ over a newspaper’s coverage of rows between the couple.

Derek Mitchell, pictured, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation over two stories in the Daily Record concerning arguments between himself and DJ Suzie McGuire.

He claimed the stories, published on 5 April and 30 May, breached the Editor’s Code clauses 1,3,6 and 9 covering accuracy, harrassment, children and reporting of crime.

However the newspaper denied that either article was inaccurate and IPSO rejected the complaint.

The 4 April story described Mr Mitchell as a “convicted wifebeater,” and stated that he had spent the weekend in custody after allegedly sending his ex-wife threatening messages on social media, before being released without charge.

The 30 May article reported that Ms McGuire had been arrested for allegedly making a threat during a phone conversation with Mr Mitchell following a row about their daughter.

Mr Mitchell said it was inaccurate for the first article to state that he had been detained over sending his ex-wife threatening “messages” on social media, saying that instead, he had been arrested for allegedly posting a video that caused fear or alarm.

He also said that the story had identified his current girlfriend which he claimed was a breach of Clause 9. Although she had appeared in court on the day of his hearing to support him, she was not genuinely relevant to the story.

The complainant also said the second article was biased and unfairly focused on him rather than on the alleged offence against him, and that it made reference to his child in breach of Clause 6.

He was also concerned that the newspaper had demonstrated “a clear pattern of abuse and intimidation” against him over the past four years.

The Record did not accept that its coverage breached the Code. It said Mr Mitchell’s new partner had attended the court where his hearing was scheduled, and that this made her genuinely relevant to the story.

It did not accept that either article was inaccurate.

In its ruling, IPSO said the mention of Mr Mitchell’s new girlfriend and his daughter did not represent a breach of Clauses 9 or 6, and that its reporting of the reasons for his arrest in the 4 April story was “not significantly milseading.”

It said: “In the context of a report that made clear the complainant had been released without being charged, whether he had allegedly published comments or a video on social media was not a significant point.”

In terms of the harassment claim, IPSO said that Clause 3 was designed to protect people from “unnwanted or repearted approaches” by the press, and that Mr Mitchell’s concern over the nature of the reports about him did not engage the clause.

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