'Frozen to death'

On 26 April, the Telegraph published the following apology:

An article on 13 February 2012 incorrectly stated that Martin Hoskins had frozen to death on an overnight fishing trip in sub-zero temperatures. In fact, he died of natural causes. We apologise for this mistaken report and for the consequent distress caused to Mr Hoskins's family. 

Seven weeks later, the Mail has published this:

An article on 14 February 2012 incorrectly stated that Martin Hoskins had frozen to death on an overnight fishing trip in sub-zero temperatures. In fact, he died of natural causes. We apologise for this mistaken report and for the consequent distress caused to Mr Hoskins's family.

And the Mirror this:

A headline on 14 February 2012 incorrectly stated that Martin Hoskins had frozen to death on an overnight fishing trip in sub-zero temperatures, although the article made it clear that no cause of death had yet been established. In fact, Mr Hoskins died of natural causes and, contrary to our report, was accompanied on the trip by a friend. We apologise to Mr Hoskins's family for any distress caused.

It is not clear why it took the Mail seven weeks longer to publish the same wording as the Telegraph.

But why did the Mirror say that someone had 'frozen to death' while also admitting 'no cause of death had yet been established'?

Some recent corrections

This correction was published by the Mail on 11 June:

An article on Wednesday said that the communications regulator Ofcom’s budget for 2012/13 is more than £140m and that it has a staff of nearly 1,000. We have been asked to point out that the budget for this financial year is £121.4m and that it employs 780 people. Ofcom denies using savings to offset the effect of public sector cuts.

And this one was published by the Sun on 3 April:

On November 21, 2011, The Sun published an article entitled ‘Scandal of Union Chiefs' £2.6m Pay Deals'. In that article, we cited POA General Secretary Steve Gillan's annual benefits package as being £62,131. This figure was based on information in the annual report of the Certification Officer for 2010-11. We have now been informed that in fact, his total annual benefits package is £24,689.50. We are happy to make this clear and to set the record straight.

Isn't it curious how these mistakes always over-estimate figures in a way that fits the papers' editorial line?

A couple of other corrections - this one from the Sun in March:

Our story of March 13 wrongly stated that Prince Harry has been told never to socialise in public and to give up alcohol until deployment.

We have been asked to point out that Prince Harry is fully committed to his intensive pre-deployment training and he has not been told anything by his chain of command that does not apply to any other pilot.

And this one from the Sun on 1 May:

On August 16, 2011 we published a report about Precious Douaihy and her relationship with Mark Duggan, who was killed by police in August 2011. We accept that the publication of this article, based upon intrusive information about Ms Douaihy, was inappropriate and that the photograph, which was taken in unsuitable circumstances, should not have been published. We regret the publication and apologise to Ms Douaihy for any distress caused by our approaches and the story.

Star: 'Only says this in the headline, the story itself does not suggest this is your quote'

Today's Daily Star says:

Soon after this front page emerged last night, Gary Lineker took to Twitter to deny he had ever said the England team were 'losers':

'Only says this in the headline, the story itself does not suggest this is your quote'. 

Like when they said Simon Cowell was 'dead' - it only said this in the front page headline, the story itself didn't actually say he was dead.

And when they ran the front page headline 'Cowell: My feud with Cheryl' which included the actual quote 'we haven't had a fight'.

And when they said a celebrity couple had 'kissed and made up' in a front page headline, when the story itself said no such thing.

And so on...

This morning, Lineker added:

When she appeared before the Leveson Inquiry, Star editor Dawn Neesom refused to admit the 'Cowell is dead' headline was complete rubbish, saying instead:

you only have a finite amount of words you can fit on a page 1 as a headline...it was designed to be an eye-catching headline.

(Hat-tip to Martin Baker)

Sorry we said you slept with Tony Blackburn

Today, the Mirror published this apology to Lyn Paul:

Following our article of 1 May 2012 in which it was reported that Lyn Paul of the New Seekers was a “conquest” of Tony Blackburn, Ms Paul has contacted us to say that she merely shared a dinner date with Tony Blackburn and neither slept with him nor had a relationship with him.  We are happy to make this clear and apologise to Ms Paul for any upset caused.

Papers apologise, pay damages for terrorism and gangster claims

MailOnline, 4 May 2012:

Algerian man wrongly accused of providing French hideout for British Al Qaeda terrorists

Metro and other publishers yesterday told the High Court they had agreed to pay substantial damages to an Algerian man for wrongly reporting that he offered a safe house in France to British Al Qaeda terrorists.

Associated Newspapers, the publisher of MailOnline and Metro, The Telegraph Media Group, MGN, the publisher of the Daily Mirror, and the publisher of the Daily Express apologised in the High Court to Farid Boukemiche, 40.

Some reports said he was on trial in France in January 2011 for associating with a known terrorist organisation and for financing terrorism.

Others alleged he was a ‘gangster’ accused of carrying out robberies or had admitted to robbery.

The High Court heard the articles had been withdrawn from the newspapers’ websites, that they had accepted that the allegations were untrue and they had apologised to Mr Boukemiche.

Daily Mirror, 4 May 2012:

Farid Boukemiche

In court yesterday we and other newspapers apologised to Farid Boukemiche. In an article provided to us by a freelance journalist which was published on 4 January 2011 we wrongly said that he was on trial in France accused of funding terrorism. Although he had been arrested in France in 2005 he was not on trial as all charges against him had been withdrawn in 2008. We further accepted that he was not a gangster nor that he had offered a "safe house" in France to British terrorists. We have paid him damages and costs.

Daily Telegraph, 3 May 2012:

Farid Boukemiche

Mr Farid Boukemiche yesterday accepted an apology and damages over reports in The Telegraph (Jan 3 and 4 2011) and other newspapers.

The court was told that reporting was based on information supplied by a freelance journalist and incorrectly suggested that Mr Boukemiche was on trial in France in January 2011 for associating with a known terrorist organisation; for financing terrorism; offering a “safe house” in France to British terrorists from Al Qaeda networks and that he was a “gangster” who was accused of carrying out robberies (including one allegation of armed robbery) and/or had admitted to robbery.

Mr Jonathen Scherbel-Ball, representing the newspapers, told the court that the publications acknowledged that the information was untrue and apologised for the distress caused. 

Metro, 4 May 2012:

Correction - Farid Boukemiche

Metro and other publishers yesterday told the High Court they had agreed to pay substantial damages to an Algerian man for wrongly reporting that he offered a safe house in France to British Al Qaeda terrorists.

Associated Newspapers, the publisher of MailOnline and Metro, The Telegraph Media Group, MGN, the publisher of the Daily Mirror, and the publisher of the Daily Express apologised in the High Court to Farid Boukemiche, 40.

Some reports said he was on trial in France in January 2011 for associating with a known terrorist organisation and for financing terrorism.

Others alleged he was a ‘gangster’ accused of carrying out robberies or had admitted to robbery.

The court heard the articles had been withdrawn from the newspapers’ websites, that they had accepted that the allegations were untrue and they had apologised to Mr Boukemiche.

Mail on Sunday apologises, again, to the bank it said was on the 'brink of disaster'

The 'Corrections and clarifications' column in today's Mail on Sunday includes these four items:

The MS Society has asked us to make clear it does not advocate hyperbaric oxygen treatment for people with multiple sclerosis. Centres mentioned in a health article last week are run by a different charity called MS National Therapy Centres.

*

Carol Vorderman did not say she left Countdown because Channel 4 bosses wanted ‘fresh meat’. She said they wanted ‘fresh faces’. Our story on March 11 about her interview with Piers Morgan also said Ms Vorderman is a maths graduate. In fact it is engineering.

*

The Royal Navy did not introduce year-round white-topped caps during WW2 as our report about new uniforms said last week. Black tops in winter continued until some time after the mid-1950s.

*

On January 15 we published a picture of Tory Party fundraiser Rickie Sehgal with a woman captioned as his wife. In fact it was Mrs Anjana Patel, who is unrelated. We apologise for our error.

However, the most noteworthy statement is a second apology to Société Générale.

It was on 7 August last year that the Mail on Sunday claimed Société Générale was:

in a 'perilous' state and possibly on the 'brink of disaster'.

It was suggested at the time that the article might have been inspired by a fictional 12-part series run by Le Monde.

As its share price began to fall, the bank issued a statement:

'categorically and vigorously' denying all 'unfounded rumours' about its position.

An apology appeared on MailOnline two days after the original article:

We now accept that this was not true and we unreservedly apologise to Société Générale for any embarrassment caused.

But in November, it was announced the bank was going to sue for defamation:

Société Générale said it was not satisfied by the apology, which it said was "hard to find" on the website and had not appeared in the newspaper.

It will claim damages to compensate for loss of business resulting from the article and for the "cost of mitigating the damage" caused by the article.

The Mail on Sunday's reaction to that was:

"The Mail on Sunday has already apologised for publishing the article. Any claims for damages will be resisted."

But today there's another apology - and one which includes mention of the payment of damages:

Société Générale – On August 7, 2011, we reported Société Générale was in dire financial difficulties because of its exposure to Greek debt, and that the French government was on standby to bail out the bank. We accept that this was untrue; the bank was not in serious financial difficulties, nor was it on the brink of insolvency or in line for a bailout from the French government. We have apologised to the bank and have agreed to pay damages.

Mirror apologises to model for serial killer photo error

On Saturday, the Daily Mirror used - without permission - an image of the model Morgana in its 'Women Who Kill' pull-out, to illustrate the story of Vera Renczi.

Today, the paper has apologised:

APOLOGY to Patricia Belda Martinez.

WITH Saturday's Daily Mirror we distributed a supplement entitled 'Women who Kill' which we trailed on the front page of the newspaper with a picture of the front page of the supplement.

One of the women whose story featured in the supplement was Vera Renczi who lived in the former Yugoslavia between 1903 and 1939 and who killed 35 men. Unfortunately due to an error the picture we used, both inside and on the front page of the supplement, was not of Vera Renczi but of Patricia Belda Martinez, who is otherwise known as Morgana and who is a fashion model. The picture we used belongs to Ms Martinez.

We apologise unreservedly to Ms Martinez for our error in wrongly using her picture in the supplement which she, of course, has no connection with and for the considerable embarrassment caused to her by our actions.

UPDATE: Morgana's own blogpost on this is here.

Sorry we suggested you were a sexist bully

Today's Mail on Sunday includes this apology:

An article on January 30, 2011, suggested that Dominic Raab MP behaved as a sexist bully in a previous job as an office manager. We accept that our allegations were unfounded and we apologise to Mr Raab for the damage, embarrassment and offence caused.

Yes, that was for an article published over a year ago.

Raab explains on his blog:

On 30 January 2011, the Mail on Sunday printed a story based on two second-hand and anonymous sources implying I was a sexist bully in a previous job before becoming an MP. I told the Mail on Sunday at the time that this was a smear, and that ‘any insinuation that I have behaved improperly is false and malicious’. So when they printed the story, I sued. A year later, with seven first-hand witnesses able to vindicate my side of the case at trial, the Mail on Sunday has apologised unequivocally and paid compensation to settle the case...

This was not a crusade against the tabloid press. But, when a newspaper gets a story badly wrong like this, it is important that there is some accountability - and an apology.

Sorry we said you raped a 14-year-old

The natural father of Peter Connelly (Baby P) has been awarded substantial damages after The People accused him of being a sex offender who had been convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl.

MediaGuardian reports:

Mr Justice Bean ordered Mirror Group Newspapers, publisher of the People, to pay an initial £30,000 in damages plus costs of £35,000. The damages payout will rise to £75,000 if the publisher loses permission to take the ruling to the court of appeal.

The allegations were contained in two paragraphs in a crime supplement in the People about Baby P's mother, who had separated from the child's father, referred to in court as KC. They appeared in a 19 September 2010 article headed "Tortured to death as mum turned a blind eye"...

Bean said in his written judgment: "It is difficult to think of any charge more calculated to lead to the revulsion and condemnation of a person's fellow citizens than the rape of a 14-year-old girl."

KC said in his witness statement that he was "shocked and upset beyond words" by the false libel, which he first learned about in phone calls from close friends.

The judge said the appropriate starting point for the damages was £150,000. But he reduced this by half, to £75,000 because Mirror Group Newspapers moved swiftly to apologise and correct the error.

The Independent added:

Heather Rogers QC, appearing for MGN [Mirror Group Newspapers], told the High Court hearing: "This was a mistake that MGN regrets and it has apologised to the claimant, and I repeat that apology on its behalf in this court."

However, she denied KC had been badly treated, or that MGN had conducted any kind of "campaign" against him, or dismissed his legitimate complaint.

Today, Ms Rogers argued that MGN should be allowed to appeal on the grounds that the compensation order was too high and "disproportionate". 

Mail on Sunday apologises over Marchioness story

Here's an extract from a Mail on Sunday article from last year:

Walid was non-committal, but the following week he invited me to his Chelsea flat where he revealed that Antonio's mother, Boneca, had flown to Spain to meet de la Rosa, who had given her £1million.

'Why?' I asked, astonished. He shrugged. 'Perhaps it was owed to Antonio.' 'But he's still missing. There's no body, no death certificate, no will.' Even if Antonio had been owed the amount, no normal company would hand over such a sum without asking for a death certificate.

And here's an extract from the Mail on Sunday's 'Corrections and clarifications' column today:

On August 21, 2011, an article entitled ‘£1bn mystery of the Marchioness’ claimed that, while her son Antonio was still missing and in the immediate aftermath of the accident, Mrs Maria ‘Boneca’ Vasconcellos had flown to Spain to receive a substantial payment from her son’s former employer.

We accept that this is not true and apologise for any distress caused to Mrs Vasconcellos who sadly lost two sons in the tragic accident.

The original article has been amended accordingly, but the apology has not been added to the end.

Sorry we said you threatened to hang an opponent

This apology to Rashid Ghannouchi was published yesterday on MailOnline:

An earlier version of the blog post "The moderate fanatics of the Islamist winter" referred to allegations made by another blogger that Rashid Ghannouchi, the leader of the Tunisian political party An Nahda, had threatened to hang political opponents Raja bin Salama and Lafif Lakhdar. The allegation was untrue, it was removed when we were informed that was the case and we apologise for any distress caused to Mr Ghannouchi.

The blog post in question was written by Melanie Phillips and the apology has been added to the end of it.

But Phillips was not the only one to make this claim about Ghannouchi - it also appeared in The Economist and they also apologised:

In our briefing last week on women and the Arab awakening (“Now is the time”), we said that Rachid Ghannouchi, the leader of Tunisia’s Nahda party, opposes the country’s liberal code of individual rights, the Code of Personal Status, and its prohibition of polygamy. We also said that he has threatened to hang a prominent Tunisian feminist, Raja bin Salama, in Basij Square in Tunis, because she has called for the country’s new laws to be based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We accept that neither of these statements is true: Mr Ghannouchi has expressly said that he accepts the Code of Personal Status; and he never threatened to hang Ms bin Salama. We apologise to him unreservedly.

This appeared on 22 October 2011.

Phillips' blog post repeating the claim was published five days later.

Sorry we said you punched a taxi

An apology to Wayne Rooney which appeared in yesterday's Sunday Mirror (spotted by Regret the Error):

On October 16 we published an article reporting claims that Wayne Rooney had damaged a taxi after it arrived late to collect him and his party for a concert.

We're happy to make clear that Wayne did not punch the vehicle which was not late and we offer him our apologies.

Sorry we said you sent 'bizarre 9/11 text'

An apology published by the Sun on 4 February 2012:

Graham Westley and Preston North End FC

An article on January 30 incorrectly stated that Graham Westley, Manager of Preston North End FC, had sent a bizarre late night text telling players to prepare for a 9/11 style terror attack and encouraging reaction to it.

We accept that Mr Westley sent no such text to players or otherwise. We are happy to set the record straight and apologise to Mr Westley and Preston North End FC.

(Hat-tip to @shoutsatcows)

What's wrong with this picture?

An apology from the Daily Mail, published today:

A picture published on January 4 which was captioned as showing convicted murderer David Norris at Deansfield Primary School in fact showed another young boy of the same name. While the picture was published in good faith, neither the individuals pictured nor the school had any connection with the events reported and we apologise for any distress caused.

An apology from the Daily Mirror (spotted by Regret the Error on 16 January):

On Friday 30 December 2011, as part of an article concerning a drugs test investigation at Hull FC, we published a picture of a man we said was Ben Cooper who has been suspended for his role in the affair.

In fact the picture was of Stuart Donlan, the assistant coach of Castleford Tigers, who has never been involved in any way with any drugs testing incident. The photo was supplied by an agency. We offer Stuart Donlan, his family and friends our sincere apologies.

Mail pays damages to Neil Morrissey

The Daily Mail has paid substantial (five-figure) libel damages to actor Neil Morrissey after a lengthy dispute over their 19 March 2011 article 'Homme behaving badly: TV star banned from bar near his idyllic French retreat after locals object to 'le binge drinking''.

MediaGuardian explains:

The Daily Mail apologised to Morrissey on page 2 in its new corrections and clarifications column and on its website last October.

However, the actor was not satisfied with the apology and applied for permission to make a statement in open court. In the statement read out at the high court in London on Thursday, Morrissey said he now felt "fully vindicated" over the claims.

"The Mail alleged that [a] poster had gone up and Mr Morrissey had been banned because his behaviour had made him unwelcome to the proprietors and staff as a bad influence who encouraged the antisocial and offensive binge drinking for which English settlers had become notorious and were resented by local French people," Peter Crawford, solicitor for Morrissey, told the judge Richard Parks QC.

"Those assertions were not true. Most significantly, Mr Morrissey had not been banned from the bar. Nor had he been drunken or rowdy in the bar."

The 21 October apology published by the Mail said:

An article on 19 March suggested that actor Neil Morrissey had been banned from a French bar for drunken behaviour and encouraging binge-drinking, and that his property was worth £500,000.

While we were shown a poster which indicated that he had been barred, we now accept that none of these allegations are correct. We also accept that local property valuations were overstated. We apologise to Mr Morrissey.

Roy Greenslade highlights Morrissey's statement following today's court proceedings:

"The paper was told before publication that the allegations about me were completely untrue but it went ahead and published anyway."

The Mail's response to my solicitor's complaint took an age but the paper would not back down and I had to issue proceedings.

Eventually, the Mail admitted that the allegations were false and damaging to my reputation. It proved impossible to agree the wording of a suitable retraction and apology but the Mail published its own tiny version of an apology which bore no relation at all to the eye-catching space given to the original article.

The apology, such as it was, won't have reached anything like the same number of people who would have read the original article.

My solicitor read a statement in court today in the hope that the Mail's apology would reach more of its readers."

Sorry we said you won the lottery

This apology was published by the Daily Mirror last week, and spotted by Regret the Error:

On December 6 under the headline Xmas dinner Is On £1m Lotto Win Coach, we wrongly reported that Mr Paul Trainor (right) had won a £1million Lottery prize. In fact the prize was won by another person.

Mr Trainor does not work at the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, nor did he buy a turkey-dinner for work colleagues or say the he was going to buy a new car. We are happy to correct the position and apologise to Mr Trainor for any embarrassment or confusion caused as a result.

Mail apologises to the Mayor of Gila Bend

In November, several newspapers reported comments from Ron Henry, the Mayor of Gila Bend, Arizona who had spoken about Prince Harry's imminent arrival at a nearby airbase for a helicopter training course.

The Sun and the Mail quoted Henry saying:

"There are probably some fathers here in Gila Bend who would go to extremes to protect their daughters. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we have some very pretty girls here. Some of the dads won't take too kindly to a Prince fornicating the night away and drinking into the small hours. It is a very quiet town with a lot of good Christian people. This isn't a party town." 

Soon after, Henry issued a statement, accusing the Mail of 'a rogue and fabricated story':

“On behalf of the Town of Gila Bend, I’d like to extend a warm welcome to Prince Harry and his fellow pilots as they conduct training at the Barry Goldwater Air Force Base...

“I am deeply saddened that comments written by the Daily Mail were not only taken out of context but also, total fabrications. In fact, the negative comments were the words of the reporter, who chose to sensationalize and fabricate a story, rather than report the truth. I would never make such outlandish comments. We have tremendous respect and adoration for Prince Harry and the Royal Family. We are excited, proud and honored to have him in our community, and we would like extend every courtesy to make his stay as comfortable as possible.”

Yesterday, the Mail published the following clarification:

In an article of 8 November we carried in good faith a news agency report that said Mayor of Gila Bend, Ron Henry, had warned Prince Harry not to ‘fornicate the night away’ whilst on an army posting to the Arizona town.

We would like to make clear that Mr Henry did not make this statement and apologise to him for this error.

The Sun's article still carries the 'fornicate' line, however. It also claims:

options in Gila Bend are somewhat more limited — the town boasts just one bar and no hard liquor licence. 

According to International Business Times:

Several British tabloid reports claimed that the town boasts just one bar, one restaurant, and one hotel (themed to look like a space rocket). These reports are simply not true.

Gila Bend boasts five hotels, an assortment of restaurants and bars and is an epicenter for renewable energy, particularly solar.

A representative for the town of Gila Bend laughed hysterically when she heard the tabloid descriptions of her town, but said Tuesday morning that they are "no longer commenting on the incident."

'May have left the impression'

An apology from the 'Corrections and clarifications' column in today's Mail on Sunday:

Last Sunday's article 'Kate's crimpers go to war' may have left the impression that Richard Ward, proprietor of the Richard Ward Hair & Metrospa salon in Chelsea, was jealous of James Pryce, a former employee, who styled the Duchess of Cambridge's hair on the day of the Royal Wedding. The article might also have suggested that Mr Ward was trying to capitalise on the salon's Royal links. We accept that Mr Ward has always given full credit to Mr Pryce for his work and that Mr Ward behaved in a totally proper manner with regard to any publicity before the Royal Wedding. We apologise for any embarrassment caused.

It says the story 'may have left the impression' the proprietor was 'jealous' of a former employee.

How is it that the article 'may' have given that 'impression'?

Perhaps the full headline from the original (now deleted) article can explain:

Kate's crimpers go to war: It's curling tongs at dawn as Royal hairdesser cuts and runs from 'jealous' salon boss.

The People apologises to Charlotte Church

Three weeks after the event but, coincidentally, one day before she appeared at the Leveson Inquiry, the People published an apology to Charlotte Church over the false claim that she had drunkenly proposed to her boyfriend:

On November 6, 2011, we said Charlotte Church had proposed marriage to Jonathan Powell at a boozy karaoke night at the Robin Hood pub in Cardiff. We were misinformed.

On the night in question Ms Church and Mr Powell were performing a gig at studios in Pentyrch, Cardiff and Ms Church did not propose that night or at all.

We are happy to set the record straight and we apologise for our mistake.

However, in her evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, Church and her lawyer made clear this wasn't necessarily the end of the story. Church said:

we didn't just want a normal run-of-the-mill apology because it's just not good enough

David Sherborne added:

What Ms Church was saying, though, was that with the apology -- and it was a unilateral one, and that's obviously a matter that's of wider interest to the Inquiry in terms of what the appropriate form of redress is -- the apology she was seeking in agreed terms was also the answers to a number of questions which are rather similar to those questions Ms Patry Hoskins had put about how it was this story was written and how there are quotes from Ms Church and her partner, given that this is all entirely fabricated.

Church also raised the issue of how her statement denying the story was treated by the media:

I gave a statement saying that it was a complete fabrication and that this was a case -- you know, this was an exact reason why this Leveson Inquiry is happening and how it's out of control and it simply shouldn't be allowed to happen, and part of my statement which was basically the denial was printed in a few publications. 

Most of -- most of the rest of it, the stronger parts of the statement, were just totally ignored and in one instance -- I think it might have been the Press Association who basically wrote back when we'd given the statement, saying, "We can't print this whole statement because our consumers don't like to hear anything negative about us or our conduct."

Sorry we said you had criminal record

Today's Daily Star published the following apology to Garry (brother of Cheryl) Tweedy:

In Court yesterday the Daily Star apologised to Garry Tweedy for an article published on 13 April in which we incorrectly reported that Mr Tweedy had admitted on his Facebook profile that he had been to prison a few times.

We accepted that Mr Tweedy did not post this comment nor has he ever been charged or convicted of a criminal offence nor been sent to prison. We apologised to Mr Tweedy for this error.

Not only has the Star apologised, but they have agreed to pay damages and legal costs to Mr Tweedy. It adds to a long line of recent libel payouts by Richard Desmond's Express Newspapers.

Heat magazine will also pay damages and apologise, after they first published the false claims. The Guardian explains:

Heat's front page article on 12 April, headlined "Cheryl's family from hell", featured a photograph of Tweedy with the caption "[Garry Tweedy] reveals prison past on Facebook".

An article inside that edition of the weekly was headed "US dream in peril thanks to Cheryl's family misfortunes" and made a number of false statements about Tweedy, his solicitor Steven Tregear said in a statement read out at the high court on Tuesday.

The Daily Star falsely claimed in an article published on 13 April, headlined "Cheryl in peril", that Tweedy had admitted on Facebook that he had been in prison a few times. "The Facebook profile [the Daily Star] relied upon was a fake," Tregear said. "[Tweedy] did not post the comment and he has never been charged or convicted of any criminal offence or sent to prison."