Updated on April 11^th, 2013.A little-reported adjudication by the PCC provides fresh evidence of the many inadequacies of the current press complaints system. It relates to a long-running dispute between Lord Ashcroft and Independent News and Media (INM) over a front page story in The Independent in 2009 which wrongly linked him with allegations of bribery and corruption via business interests in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Lord Ashcroft took legal action against INM for defamation. The ensuing case only came to its conclusion last December, with a settlement which included INM offering an unreserved apology in open court. INM accepted that it had “found no evidence whatsoever that Ashcroft or his companies has been involved with activities in the Turks and Caicos Islands concerning politicians, public officials or others which might be considered to represent bribery or indeed any other corrupt practice”. The Independent, its current owners, editor and staff were not a party to the settlement.

However, the peer then brought a complaint to the PCC, arguing that the subsequent reporting of the case in the Independent – by then under new ownership - published under the headline “Ashcroft drops High Court action after apology”, contained misleading information and failed to fulfil the newspaper’s obligation (under the Editors’ Code) to publish a fair and accurate report of the outcome of the proceedings.

The peer complained that the headline suggested that he had abandoned his action, rather than agreeing not to pursue it as part of a settlement; that the paper had summarised the judgement rather than reproducing it in full; that the report had been excessively delayed, appearing 8 days after the end of the action; and (among other complaints) had been given insufficient prominence as it appeared on page 23 of the paper.

The PCC did not uphold the complaint on any ground. Perhaps the most baffling finding in the adjudication is that the requirements in the Editors’ Code for a prompt and prominent correction do not apply when a publication is reporting a public correction made as part of the outcome of a libel action in which it has been involved. In other words, according to the PCC a “fair and accurate” report of the outcome of a defamation action does not have to be one which is given the same or equivalent prominence to the original false and defamatory story. This demonstrates, once again, how under the PCC code proper and accurate corrections are not required.

Writing in response to the judgement, Lord Ashcroft said:

I will allow others to be the judge whether the PCC is correct. For myself, I continue to have little confidence in the effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission, hence my recent vote against the Government in favour of an amendment to the Defamation Bill to provide for an independent arbitration mechanism. It seems that this is one leopard which may well be incapable of changing its own spots.

Hacked Off made changes to this blog post on 11^th April 2013 at the request of The Independent, in order to clarify the following points:1. The legal action was not against the Independent. The defendants were Independent News & Media, the paper’s former owners.2. The Independent and its current owners did not offer Lord Ashcroft an apology. The apology was made by INM.3. The acceptance that there was “no evidence whatsoever that Lord Ashcroft or his companies has been involved with activities in the Turks & Caicos Islands concerning politicians, public officials or others which might be considered to represent bribery or indeed any other corrupt practice” was made by INM. The Independent, its current owners, editor and staff were not a party to the settlement.