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:
Dr Michael Richman

Clauses Noted: 1

Publication: Daily Mail

Complaint:

Dr Michael Richman complained through solicitors, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice, that an article inaccurately stated that he had been arrested in 2003, and that he had faced a charge of vandalism. Dr Richman's representatives said that pursuant to California statute he had not been arrested as he had successfully completed a deferred entry of judgement program, and that he was never charged with vandalism.

Decision:
None

Adjudication:

The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the removal of the reference to a vandalism charge and the publication of the following revised clarification:

Following publication of this article, we have been made aware that, in May 2003, Dr Richman entered a plea of no contest to a charge of being under the influence of a controlled substance as part of a negotiated deal to allow him to enter a deferred entry of judgment program that would ultimately result in the charge being expunged. He did not face a vandalism charge. We are happy to make this clear.

Date Published:
09/05/2014



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