The Drum Awards for Marketing - Extended Deadline

-d -h -min -sec

Jack Irvine Sunday Herald

Drum editor responds to Irvine's claims he was 'brought to heel' by libel lawyer

Author

By The Drum Team, Editorial

March 24, 2010 | 7 min read

The Drum responds to claims from Jack Irvine following its report into the relationship between media owners and Levy & McRae last week.

NOTICE TO ALL NEWS DESKS

20/03/2010 21:13

From jack@mediahouse.co.uk

Issued by Jack Irvine, Chairman of Media House International Ltd.

I am informed that The Sunday Herald will be carrying a story saying that solicitor Peter Watson is a shareholder in Media House. It appears that they are trying to suggest, following the Steven Purcell affair, that he has a conflict of interests because of his advisory role with several newspaper groups.

The Sunday Herald’s Managing Director Mr Tim Blott was presented with documentary proof yesterday that Mr Watson is a trustee for my children and as such has no pecuniary advantage in Media House.

I reported The Sunday Herald to the PCC last week for failing to contact me and allow me to present my side of the story over the handling of the Purcell affair. The result was a one sided hatchet job by Tom Gordon and Paul Hutcheon.

It appears they have learned nothing and I have only learned of this evening’s story from my newspaper sources.

Strangely the original questions concerning the shareholdings came yesterday from Richard Draycott, Editor of The Drum, a small circulation magazine. Equally strangely Mr Draycott had to be brought to heel recently over another magazine in his group, The Firm, which made lurid allegations against senior Scottish law officers. The lawyer involved in curbing Mr Draycott’s irresponsible approach was none other than Mr Peter Watson.

Draw your own conclusions.

(Members of the press were then invited to contact Irvine via his home telephone number)

The Drum’s Response

First of all let’s get the main points mentioned in Jack’s letter out of the way. The Sunday Herald states that it has worked within the Press Complaints Commission codes and will defend itself vigorously against any claims to the contrary.

And issues relating to connections between Jack Irvine and Peter Watson have been reported elsewhere, and readers are now able to draw their own conclusions about the points that have been raised.

However, Irvine brings another case into the public domain when he says that "Mr Draycott had to be brought to heel" over an article published by The Drum’s sister magazine The Firm, a legal title.

Mr Draycott does not edit The Firm. He had no involvement into the investigation that dealt with this story. Therefore allegations that his "irresponsible actions" were curbed are just plain silly in every way.

The Firm story in question, which like the Purcell issue has not been reported in Scotland as widely as one might expect, related to concerns about the role of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Elish Angionlini in not prosecuting an alleged member of a paedophile ring around the time she was appointed Procurator Fiscal for the North East 10 years ago. The victim has been named as Hollie Greig.

The Firm found reporting this story difficult as the Crown Office did not initially respond to some of its requests for information. It wanted to find out specifically when she was appointed, and specifically when the decision not to prosecute was taken.

The Lord Advocate was unhappy with The Firm’s initial coverage and threatened libel action through Levy & McRae.

Why is this relevant to readers of The Drum? The Lord Advocate is an appointed member of the Scottish Government. It is unusual for an individual holding a high public office to resort to the laws of libel.

South of the Border, for example, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, has announced a review of the laws of libel following concerns that they are now being used to stifle free speech and the freedom of the press.

However, through the legal correspondence The Firm was able to get the information it had initially requested. The Lord Advocate had been appointed to her role in Aberdeen the day after the decision not to prosecute was taken.

The Firm, although not understanding why the Crown Office would not initially furnish it with the information it had asked for, never believed the Lord Advocate had behaved improperly. And it cooperated to amend its article which stated the Lord Advocate was ‘not involved, no connection, unaware’ as far as the decision not to prosecute was concerned.

You can read The Firm's resulting article here.

However, subsequent correspondence from Levy & McRae contradicted this position. When this was pointed out Peter Watson said it was an error on his part. The defamation procedures were abandoned shortly afterwards and Levy & McRae referred the matter to the Press Complaints Commission.

The case was settled without an adjudication being made.

The Firm continues to monitor this case with interest.

Was The Firm’s editorial judgement affected by the threat of libel action? At one stage the Lord Advocate suggested The Firm could find itself in the Court of Session within hours. The Firm is a small independent publication and defending such an action could have potentially put the magazine out of business. So, the financial risk would have been front of mind, although it is difficult to say whether that affected its editorial judgement.

But at the end of the day The Firm did not contribute to the Lord Advocates costs. The question remains: Who did? Was it the Lord Advocate herself, or the Scottish Government?

This issue is now the subject of a Freedom of Information request.

But other public bodies have been involved in suing the Scottish press in the past. The Drum will now be writing to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny McAskill – a former Levy McRae employee – and asking him to run a review of the Scottish libel laws, similar to the one Justice Secretary Jack Straw has announced in England.

Specifically we would like him to examine whether the current rules are seriously undermining freedom of speech in Scotland. And we would also like him to examine when it is appropriate for public money to be used to protect the reputation of public servants.

Jack Irvine Sunday Herald

More from Jack Irvine

View all

Trending

Industry insights

View all
Add your own content +