AddThis SmartLayers

Watchdog raps news site for reporting ‘false name’ claim as fact

Kathryn KentA news website has been rapped by the press watchdog for wrongly reporting as fact that a banned driver had given a false name to police.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has upheld in part a complaint against Staffordshire Live over a story it ran about Kathryn Kent.

The site had reported on Kent’s sentencing for a series of driving offences and said she was already disqualified from driving when she was pulled over by police officers in August 2020, to whom she had “initially [given a] false name”.

But, after an investigation, IPSO found Staffordshire Live had given the misimpression that this was a point of fact accepted by the court rather than a claim made by the prosecution.

Complaining under Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Kent also claimed she was convicted of driving while disqualified and without insurance, but not for drink driving as reported.

Denying a breach of Code, Staffordshire Live said it was satisfied that all information contained in the story was an accurate report of the court proceedings at which Kent, pictured, had been sentenced.

It provided a copy of correspondence the reporter had received from a court clerk following the hearing which confirmed that the charges against the complainant were “driving while disqualified, driving without insurance and driving while under the influence of alcohol.”

Staffordshire Live also provided a copy of the reporter’s contemporaneous notes in order to demonstrate that the court had heard Kent had initially told police officers her name was “Robin Kent”.

During the course of IPSO’s investigation, Kent provided a copy of the charges she had faced as set out by her solicitors that revealed she was convicted of driving whilst disqualified and without insurance, but not for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Upon receipt of this, and following further correspondence with the court, Staffordshire Live had amended the online article to remove this information and published a correction.

The site also clarified that the prosecution had made the “false name” claim which it said had then not been denied or disputed by Kent or their legal representative during proceedings.

In such circumstances, and taken into account within the context of the whole article, Staffordshire Live did not consider that the story was significantly misleading on this point but did publish a further clarification on this point.

IPSO did not consider that there was any failure to take care over the accuracy of the story in relation to reporting of the charges against Kent, when the court had confirmed that these included “driving while under the influence of alcohol”.

However, the reporting of the “false name” allegation gave the misimpression that this was a point of fact accepted by the court rather than a claim made by the prosecution.

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