AddThis SmartLayers

Daily justified in calling driver ‘drunk’ despite prosecution for different offence

NewIPSOA regional daily was justified in calling a driver “drunk” even though he was not charged with drink driving, the press watchdog has ruled.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has found in favour of the Leicester Mercury after it covered the case of Mark Busby, who was prosecuted after failing to produce a suitable specimen of breath during a roadside test.

The Mercury’s coverage, as well as that of its Reach plc sister weekly the Loughborough Echo, prompted Busby to complain to IPSO.

He claimed the Mercury’s online headline of ‘Drunk driver goes wrong way on the A46′ was inaccurate because he was not prosecuted as a “drunk driver”.

However, IPSO found this was an acceptable characterisation given the other evidence heard during Busby’s court case.

Complaining under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Busby told IPSO he had been prosecuted for failing to produce a suitable specimen of breath.

In response, the Mercury said that the prosecutor had made reference to “a strong smell of alcohol and he was unsteady on his feet” during court proceedings.

It noted Busby had accepted that he blew 81 microgrammes at the roadside which is more than twice the legal limit and was considered a “high” reading when breathalysed, and that the only reason the complainant was not prosecuted as a drink driver is because he failed to provide a suitable specimen.

The Mercury said the story did not state that Busby was charged with drink driving, but rather quoted the chair of the bench: who said: “Eighty-one is a high level of impairment and there was an element of dangerous driving – you could have killed someone.”

IPSO ruled that while Busby had not been convicted for “drink-driving”, it was acceptable to characterise his driving in this way for the reasons noted by the Mercury.

The Committee found Busby had accepted he had driven after drinking earlier with customers and the story itself made clear the exact crime for which he had been convicted.

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