AddThis SmartLayers

Drunk brawler’s stepdad said daily’s video made him look like defendant

A drunk brawler’s stepfather claimed a regional daily’s photograph of him outside court misled readers into believing he was also a defendant in the case.

Karon Roberts complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation after the North Wales Daily Post pictured him outside court with his stepson Aled Price-Jones, who was convicted for his part in a fight which left a man with a broken jaw.

However, IPSO sided with the Daily Post on the issue and dismissed the complaint.

The Daily Post’s story reported on Price-Jones’s conviction after he had “drunkenly brawled” following a Euro 2016 football match between Wales and Belgium, along with another named individual.

A still from the video showing Mr Roberts, pictured left, with the defendant

A still from the video showing Mr Roberts, pictured left, with the defendant

The online article contained a 42 second video of Mr Roberts and Price-Jones walking into the Caernarfon Crown Court building.

Mr Roberts, who was not involved in the fight, complained to IPSO under Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice,

He said he was not relevant to the story and the publication of the video had given the misleading impression that he was one of the defendants.

The Daily Post said that Mr Roberts had appeared with the defendant outside of court where there was a reasonable expectation that the press, including photographers and videographers, may be present, adding the article had contained two large photographs which had identified the two defendants, making clear that the complainant had not been one of them.

In response to the complaint, the newspaper published a caption on the video which specified that the defendant was the individual walking on the right-hand side and also offered to publish a clarification on this point.

IPSO found Mr Roberts had been filmed in a public location and was not engaged in private activity, while any ambiguity as to who the defendants were was remedied in the body of the article.

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