Press Complaints Commission
spacer spacer
SEARCH FOR     Or try the cases search  
Cases Banner
  spacer
Making a complaint
Code of Practice Information
Cases
Code Advice
 

Complainant Name:
Jirehouse Capital

Clauses Noted: 1, 2, 3, 4

Publication: The Guardian

Complaint:

Jirehouse Capital complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply), Clause 3 (Privacy), and Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Editors' Code of Practice. The complainant was concerned that the newspaper had included a number of inaccuracies about its involvement in Scot Young's financial affairs, including an incorrect statement that he was a client of the firm. It did not consider that it had been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations included in the article, and was concerned that the newspaper had been in possession of confidential information.

Resolution:

The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following statement in the newspaper:

An article about Scot Young, a businessman who was jailed for contempt of court for failing to verify alleged financial losses in divorce proceedings, said that Mr Young had constructed a secret network of offshore companies to hide assets from his wife. In the story we referred to Jirehouse Capital and its principal Stephen Jones, a solicitor, and said that their clients had included Mr Young. Jirehouse Capital has pointed out to us that the article could be read as implying that it and Mr Jones had somehow assisted Mr Young in hiding assets from his wife. That was not our intention. To clarify: on 22 November 2013, the high court found that neither Jirehouse nor Mr Jones had ever acted for Mr Young, nor had they acted improperly in relation to various actions taken on behalf of several of Mr Young's creditors including Project Moscow (Jailed property man hid his assets during divorce, 4 April 2013, pages 16 and 17).

In addition to the publication of a link to the clarification at the head of the online article, the following footnote was appended to the piece:

This footnote was added on 17 February 2014 to clarify the above references to Jirehouse Capital and its principal Stephen Jones, a solicitor. The article says that Scot Young had constructed a secret network of offshore companies to hide assets from his wife. It says that the clients of Jirehouse and Mr Jones had included Mr Young. Jirehouse Capital have pointed out to us that the article could be read as implying that it and Mr Jones had somehow assisted Mr Young in hiding assets from his wife. That was not our intention. To clarify: on 22 November 2013, the High Court found that neither Jirehouse nor Mr Jones had ever acted for Mr Young nor had they acted improperly in relation to various actions taken on behalf of several of Mr Young's creditors including in relation to Project Moscow.

Date Published: 07/03/2014



<< Go Back
 
    spacer
Home ] Cases ] Site map ]