The page two apologies to Christopher Jefferies

Seven months ago, Christopher Jefferies was subject to these character-assassinating front pages (among many, many others):


Yesterday, eight newspapers - the Sun, Mail, Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Express, Star, Daily Record and Scotsman - agreed to pay Jefferies libel damages and apologise for their coverage.

Yet there is not one word of the apology, or one word about it, on the front page of the Sun, Mail, Mirror, Express, Star or Daily Record today. Instead, the apologies are all hidden away on page two. (If anyone has a copy of the Scotsman, please do let me know how they have handled this.)

Although this was resolved legally, rather than through the Press Complaints Commission, the Code of Practice states:

A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence.

Given the original offence, it is very hard to see how these apologies can be considered prominent enough.

Here's the Star's apology:

In court yesterday the Daily Star apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published on December 31 2010 and January 1 2011, in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.

The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate over- sexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher. The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations.

We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies.

The Mail:

Eight newspapers apologised to Mr Christopher Jefferies in the High Court yesterday. Reports of the investigation into the death of Joanna Yeates had wrongly suggested that Mr Jefferies, who was arrested but released without charge, was suspected of killing Ms Yeates, may have had links to a convicted paedophile and an unresolved murder. It was also wrongly alleged that the former school master had acted inappropriately to pupils.

The newspapers, including the Daily Mail, agreed to pay Mr Jefferies substantial damages and legal costs.

* Later the Daily Mirror was fined £50,000 and the Sun ,£18,000 for contempt of court in relation to their reports.

The Express:

In court yesterday the Daily Express apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published in the Daily Express on December 31 2010 in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.

The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate, over-sexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher. The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations. It was further suggested that there were grounds to investigate whether he was responsible for an unsolved murder dating back to 1974.

We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies.

Daily Record:

Yesterday the Daily Record and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about the retired school master Christopher Jefferies, who, we had wrongly suggested, was strongly to be suspected of having killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates.

We also wrongly suggested that he had acted inappropriately towards his pupils in the past and invaded his tenants' privacy.

We accepted that these allegations were untrue and that far from being involved in the crime, Mr Jefferies helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.

We have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.

At the time of writing, only the Express, Star and Daily Record have a link to the apology on the homepage of their website. MailOnline has not put it on the homepage but half way down their 'news' page - further down than a story about this weekend's weather.

It appears the Mirror, Sun and Scotsman have so far failed to publish their apologies online.

Speaking to a committee of MPs recently, Mail editor Paul Dacre, who is also Chair of the Committee that oversees the Code of Practice, said that the claim newspapers bury corrections is:

one of the great myths of our time.

This from a man whose paper's website was, only a few months ago, routinely placing apologies for British stories in its US section.

Yet if the newspapers fail so miserably to give proper prominence to apologies in a case as serious as this one, Dacre's words should be treated with the disdain they deserve.

UPDATE: The Sun's apology does not appear if you search their website for either Chris or Christopher Jefferies. But it is up there:

The Sun apologised in court yesterday to ex-schoolmaster Christopher Jefferies for false suggestions he might have killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates, acted inappropriately towards pupils in the past, invaded his tenants' privacy, was associated with a convicted paedophile and might have been involved in an unsolved murder in 1974.

We accepted these allegations were untrue and that Mr Jefferies in fact helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.

We have agreed to pay substantial damages and costs to Mr Jefferies.

The Mirror's apology is also now up:

Yesterday the Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about the retired school master Christopher Jefferies, who, we had wrongly suggested, was strongly to be suspected of having killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates.

The Daily Mirror wrongly suggested that he had invaded his tenants' privacy, was associated with a convicted paedophile and might have had something to do with an unsolved murder dating back to 1974.

The Sunday Mirror wrongly suggested that he had acted inappropriately towards his pupils in the past.

We accepted that these allegations were untrue and that far from being involved in the crime, Mr Jefferies helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.

We have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.

And The Scotsman finally published their apology online on 1 August:

Yesterday The Scotsman and other newspapers apologised in court for having wrongly suggested that Mr Jefferies was involved in the killing of Joanna Yeates.

We had also wrongly suggested that he had acted in an inappropriate, oversexualised manner with his pupils in the past and that he invaded the privacy of his tenants in his capacity as a landlord of two flats.

We accepted in court that these allegations were untrue and that Mr Jefferies had no involvement in Ms Yeates' killing.

In recognition of the distress caused, we have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.

'Witch hunts and character assassination'

Christopher Jefferies, the man arrested but released without charge in the Jo Yeates murder case, has accepted 'substantial' libel damages and apologies from eight newspapers.

The papers involved were the Sun, Mail, Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Express, Star, Daily Record and Scotsman.

Speaking outside court, Jefferies' lawyer Louis Charalambous said:

"Christopher Jefferies is the latest victim of the regular witch hunts and character assassination conducted by the worst elements of the British tabloid media.

"Many of the stories published in these newspapers are designed to 'monster' the individual, in flagrant disregard for his reputation, privacy and rights to a fair trial.

"These newspapers have now apologised to him and paid substantial damages but they do so knowing that once the conditional fee agreement rules are changed next year victims of tabloid witch hunts will no longer have the same access to justice."

It is worth remembering the coverage, which included him being labelled a 'Peeping Tom' and 'Professor Strange' and he was accused of being 'obsessed with death' and 'creepy'.

Another lawyer, Bambos Tsiattalou, who had advised Jefferies, stated:

"We warned the media by letter, immediately following Mr Jefferies' arrest, in the strongest possible terms to desist from publishing stories which were damaging or defamatory.

"We were dismayed that our warnings went unheeded and are pleased that the newspapers, in settling Mr Jefferies' claims, have acknowledged the extent of the damage to his reputation."

A few hours after those damages were announced, the High Court ruled the Mirror and Sun were in contempt over some of their articles on Jefferies which 'created substantial risks to the course of justice'.

The judgment (pdf) highlights the articles in question. First, the Mirror on 31 December:

On the front page of the Daily Mirror, in the context of what were described as the “Jo files” the headline alleged that “Jo suspect is peeping Tom”. It was asserted on the front page in large print:

“Arrest landlord spied on flat couple”, followed immediately below by:

“Friend in jail for paedophile crimes”, followed immediately below by:

“Cops now probe 36 –years old murder.”

In short, while positively asserting that Mr Jefferies was a voyeur, without directly asserting that he was involved in paedophile crimes or a long unresolved murder, the impression conveyed to an objective reader was that he was somehow linked with not one but two awful, additional crimes.

Then the Mirror the following day:

The front page banner headline asks “Was killer waiting in Jo’s flat?”. The story on the front page begins:

“Joanna Yeates’s killer may have been waiting for her inside her basement flat as she returned home. Detectives yesterday sent towels and bedding for DNA tests after finding no signs of a break-in”.

We observe that if entry was not forced, then whoever went into the flat had access to it. The only person with

And in the Sun, also on 1 January:

On the lower half of the front page of The Sun the headline reads “Obsessed by death” and it is alleged that Mr Jefferies “scared kids” by a macabre fascination. He wanted to show death to his pupils and was obsessed with it...

More significant, was the headline across pages 4 and 5 “Murdered Jo: suspect “followed me” says woman”. And this was followed by a lengthy article under the headline “What do you think I am…a pervert?” describing the “landlord’s outburst at blonde”. This was an “exclusive” story about a “former acquaintance” of Mr Jefferies who felt that she was being followed by him. The thrust of the story was that Mr Jefferies liked blondes – and Miss Yeates, too, was blonde - and she felt as though she was being followed by someone described as “quite a dominant personality”, a “control freak” who made her feel “very uncomfortable”.

In the view of the newspapers there was no risk to the course of justice because people would have forgotten what they had said about Jefferies:

The main focus of the written submissions by the defendants was that the articles did not create substantial risk of serious prejudice to any trial of Mr Jefferies which might take place in the future, probably some 9 months or so after publication.

The ruling states:

The material in the two publications of the Daily Mirror is extreme...In our judgment the two publications in the Daily Mirror created substantial risks to the course of justice. They constituted contempt under the strict liability rule.

It adds that although the effect of the Sun's articles:

is not as grave as that of two series of articles contained in the Mirror, the vilification of Mr Jefferies created a very serious risk that the preparation of his defence would be damaged. At the time when this edition of the Sun was published it created substantial risks to the course of justice. It therefore constituted a contempt under the strict liability rule.

Reflecting that judgment, the Mirror has been fined £50,000 and the Sun £18,000, although at time of writing the Mirror's publishers have said they will appeal.

Given that seven of the eight papers in the Jefferies case also paid libel damages to Robert Murat almost exactly three years ago, it's clear that certain newspapers have learnt nothing from this type of coverage.

Instead, when Jefferies was arrested, there was a disgraceful feeding frenzy in which each tabloid tried to out-do its rivals with even more extreme, prurient detail.

How did this happen? As Roy Greenslade asks: how did the lawyers at these papers let these stories be published in the first place?

Will the newspapers publish apologies to Jefferies with the prominence that he deserves? Will any of the editors involved take the time to explain themselves?

And will these papers act differently next time someone is arrested in a high-profile case?

Something fishy about Daily Mail Reporter's Captain Haddock tale

On 14 July, the Mail reported that some Tintin fans were unhappy about Captain Haddock's accent in an upcoming Spielberg film:

Attributed to Daily Mail Reporter, the article went to explain what a few people had written on various websites. It doesn't exactly justify 'up in arms'.

It's unusual for the Mail to report comments on messageboards that aren't about the BBC. So where did the story come from?

Well, around 20 hours before, The Scotsman published an article by Tim Cornwell which carried the headline:


Cornwell's article had quotes from angry fans, Scottish film-maker Murray Grigor and Hannah McGill, former director of the Edinburgh International Film Festival.

The Daily Mail Reporter article includes all the same quotes, in exactly the same order.

There are other similarities. From the Scotsman:

The comic's Belgian creator, Georges Prosper Remi, known as Hergé, named Haddock while at dinner with his wife. "What is that?" he asked, when seeing haddock on the menu. "A sad English fish," she replied.

And the Mail:

The comic’s Belgian creator, Georges Prosper Remi, known as Herge, named Haddock while at dinner with his wife.

‘What is that?’ he asked, when seeing haddock on the menu.

‘A sad English fish,’ she replied.

From Cornwell:

The trailer features the moment when the drunken Captain Haddock starts a fire in a rowboat. "What are you doing?" Tintin asks. "I lit a wee fire," he replies. "In a boat?" Tintin screams.

One viewer referred caustically to Serkis's Scottish accent as "somewhere between Christopher Lambert's in Highlander and Robin Williams's in Mrs Doubtfire" - Scottish accents voiced by a Frenchman and an American comedian.

And from Daily Mail Reporter:

The trailer features the moment when the drunken Captain Haddock starts a fire in a rowboat. Tintin asks: ‘What are you doing?’, to which Haddock replies: ‘I lit a wee fire’. ‘In a boat?’ Tintin screams.

One viewer referred to Serkis’ Scottish accent as ‘somewhere between Christopher Lambert’s in Highlander and Robin Williams’s in Mrs Doubtfire’ - Scottish accents voiced by a Frenchman and an American comedian.

But there are other bits of background information about Tintin and Haddock in the Daily Mail Reporter's article that aren't in Cornwell's story. For example:

There was a real 20th-century ship’s master bearing the surname - Captain Herbert Haddock was skipper of the famous White Star Line’s passenger vessel Olympic, and had also been temporarily at the helm of its sister ship, Titanic, before it was officially handed over to White Star for her doomed 1912 maiden voyage with passengers.

Compare that paragraph with this one from the Captain Haddock Wikipedia page, which was last updated two days before the Mail article appeared:

There was, however a real 20th-century ship's master bearing this unlikely but appropriate surname: Captain (Herbert) Haddock had been the skipper of the famous White Star Line's passenger vessel Olympic. He had also been temporarily at the helm of Olympic's even more famous sister ship, Titanic, before Titanic was officially handed over to White Star for her doomed 1912 maiden voyage with passengers.

There's more. Daily Mail Reporter:

Captain Haddock was introduced to the Tintin books in The Crab with the Golden Claws.

Haddock was first introduced as the rum-loving captain of the Karaboudjan, a merchant vessel used, without Haddock’s knowledge, by his first mate Allan Thompson for smuggling drugs inside crab tins.

Wikipedia:

Captain Haddock was introduced in The Crab with the Golden Claws....

Haddock was first introduced as the rum-loving captain of the Karaboudjan, a merchant vessel used—without Haddock's knowledge—by his first mate Allan Thompson for smuggling drugs inside crab tins.

Daily Mail Reporter:

But his most noble act is in Tintin in Tibet, in which he stoically volunteers to sacrifice his life to save Tintin.

Although when introduced Haddock has command of a freighter, in later volumes he is clearly retired.

The Captain’s coarse humanity and sarcasm act as a counterpoint to Tintin’s often implausible heroism; he is always quick with a dry comment whenever the boy reporter gets too idealistic.

Wikipedia:

his most noble act being in the pivotal Tintin in Tibet, in which he stoically volunteers to sacrifice his life to save Tintin. Although when introduced Haddock has command of a freighter, in later volumes he is clearly retired.

The Captain's coarse humanity and sarcasm act as a counterpoint to Tintin's often implausible heroism; he is always quick with a dry comment whenever the boy reporter gets too idealistic.

Daily Mail Reporter:

By the time of their last completed and published adventure, Tintin and the Picaros, Haddock had become such an important figure that he dominates much of the first half of the story.

He is especially notable in The Red Sea Sharks, where his skilful captaining of the ship he and Tintin seize from Rastapopoulos allows them to survive until they are rescued.

Wikipedia:

By the time of their last completed and published adventure, Tintin and the Picaros, Haddock had become such an important figure that he dominates much of the first half of the story. He is especially notable in The Red Sea Sharks, where his skilful captaining of the ship he and Tintin seize from Rastapopoulos allows them to survive until they are rescued.

Daily Mail Reporter:

In addition to his many insults, the most famous of Haddock’s expressions include permutations of two phrases: ‘Billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles!’ and ‘Ten thousand thundering typhoons!’

Wikipedia:

In addition to his many insults, the most famous of Haddock's expressions relate to any of a number of permutations of two phrases: "Billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles!" ("Mille millions de mille milliards de mille sabords!") and "Ten thousand thundering typhoons!" ("Tonnerre de Brest!").

Given this shameless copy-and-paste job, is it any wonder the person responsible decided to hide behind the 'Daily Mail Reporter' byline?

(Hat-tip to Steffan)