Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Decision
Introduction
The Article
3. The Article also names Maroun Semaan, who died in 2017 and was
Petrofac’s co-founder as having been subject to allegations by the SFO that
he was complicit in six counts of alleged bribery.
4. The Article contains the following passages which are of particular relevance
to the complaint:
“
In the first prosecution resulting from the investigation, David Lufkin, 51, Petrofact’s
former global head of sales, pleaded guilty to 11 counts of bribery at Westminster
magistrates court in London on 6 February. He admitted offering to make corrupt
payments to try to secure contracts in Saudi Arabia worth $3.5bn and contracts in
Iraq worth $730m.
The SFO alleged Semaan was complicit in six counts of the alleged bribery.
According to prosecutors, Semaan acted with Lufkin and others to offer inducements
to be paid to Iraqi and Saudi officials between October 2011 and February 2013.
7. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the RE’s response and contended that
the Article was inaccurate because the “official court record” did not name Mr
Semaan. It was also said that the SFO’s own press release made no
reference to any Petrofac employee (including Mr Semaan) being subject to
conspiracy allegations alongside Mr Lufkin. The crux of the Complainant’s
argument was that there is a difference between Mr Semaan being accused
(via charges against him) of crimes and simply being named in connection
with charges against other individuals. The Complainant further contended
that to the extent this information had been based on a leaked “charge sheet”
from the SFO, it was explicitly stated that no charging decisions had actually
been made.
8. The RE responded again by email on 21 February 2019, maintaining the
position in relation to accuracy in relation to the naming of Mr Semaan as
having been the subject of charges laid before the court.
9. On 22 February 2019, the Complainant wrote to the RE expressing again his
dissatisfaction with the RE’s response. Of relevance to the complaint before
the Panel, is the following:
(a) the Complainant expressed concern that the Guardian had relied on confirmation
from a source at the SFO rather than by contacting the court and obtaining an
“official charge record” and that this was not made clear in the Article;
(b) There was a discrepancy between what the court had said (that Mr Semaan was
not named in any charges before it) and what the SFO’s position had told the
paper and that this discrepancy needed to be addressed in the Article;
(c) The phrase “charges laid before the court” was misleading as it gave the
impression that the charges had been heard in open court when in fact Mr
Semaan was only named in a document produced by the SFO which contradicted
the court record.
(d) The source of the information as not being from the “official court record” needed
to be made explicitly clear to the reader to avoid a misleading impression.
13. On 11 March 2019, June Sheenan of the RE office responded to the Claimant
by email.1 She noted the content of the Complainant’s email and set out her
understanding that what had been provided was a “Memorandum of an Entry
in the Register of the Central London Magistrates’ Court”. This set out what
took place when Mr Lufkin appeared before the court on 6 February 2019 and
indicated guilty pleas to the 11 charges in respect of which he had been
charged. Ms Sheenan also informed the Complainant that the Guardian was
now in possession from Westminster Magistrates’ Court a copy of the court’s
“charge record”. This was directed to David Lufkin, demanding his
appearance before the court to answer charges including 6 counts on which
he was charged “together with Maroun Semaan”. Those 11 charges were
identical to those set out in the document provided to the journalist by the
SFO.
14. The Panel received the Complainant’s completed form on 11 March 2019,
together with a copy of what he described as the “official court record”. The
complaint before the Panel may be summarised as follows:
(a) the Article does not adequately set out the basis upon which it makes the
assertion that Mr Semaan had been named in charges before the court, i.e. that it
relied on a source at the SFO rather than contacting the court and confirming the
allegations “through examination of the official charge record”.
(b) The Guardian should have contacted the court for clarification and confirmation;
15. The Complainant seeks a correction “to accurately reflect the context in which
The Guardian has obtained its information”.
“Accuracy
[…]
17. Although not referred to explicitly in the complaint, the Panel has also
considered Clause 2 “Opportunity to Reply” which provides as follows:
2 Emphasis supplied.
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
Discussion
Inaccuracies
18. The Panel has considered the document provided by the Complainant which
he says is the “official charge sheet”. It notes that this document appears to
be a “Memorandum of an Entry”. It contains no watermark or other court
stamp but is headed “Central London Magistrates Court” and makes
reference to “PM Court Westminster Magistrates Court” (“the First
Document”). The Complainant maintains that this is the “official court record”
but has provided no further information as to the provenance or status of the
First Document. The First Document lists 11 charges against Mr Lufkin and
indicates the guilty plea entered.
19. The Panel has also considered the document headed “Westminster
Magistrates Court” which contains the SFO stamp in the top right hand corner
and appears to be a requisition to appear to answer the charges listed at
Westminster Magistrates Court at 4.30pm on 6 February 2019. It contains
details of the officer who authorised the charges and the date the charge was
authorised (6 February 2019) (“the Second Document”).
20. Further, the Panel reminds itself that what is required by the Code is that
journalists “take care” not to publish inaccurate information. Only “significant
inaccuracies” require a correction.
21. The most significant difference in the content of two documents is that the
First Document names only Mr Lufkin and the Second Document names in
the charges Mr Lufkin and various other officials including (in 6 counts) Mr
Semaan as having acted together to offer a financial advantage to a third
party. The Panel also notes that the Second Document is a charge sheet
served on Mr Lufkin requiring him to appear in order to answer the charges
listed.
22. The Panel accepts that there is a difference between the two documents in
that the Second Document suggests that Mr Semaan was also facing charges
together with a number of other individuals, although he is named in the
context of a charge sheet directed at Mr Lufkin. It also notes that if the
charges were authorised on 6 February 2019 as indicated on the face of the
Second Document, then by this stage, Mr Semaan had already passed away
and so would have been unable to face any charges against him.
24. Even if the Panel were to be satisfied that there is an arguable inaccuracy in
the phrase “laid before the court” on the basis of the First Document, it would
still not amount to any breach of the Code. A reasonable reader would
understand the Article to be suggesting that (a) Mr Lufkin was charged with a
number of offences under the Bribery Act; and (b) In the context of those
charges, allegations were also made against Mr Semaan. The Panel is unable
to find – on the basis of the evidence before it - that either of these statements
is inaccurate. Even if there is some ambiguity over the forum in which the
charging decisions were brought, the Panel does not consider that this
amounts to a “significant” or even a material inaccuracy. The complaint is
directed at the distinction between charges brought by the SFO and charges
formally “laid before the court” which the Complainant suggests carries a far
more serious meaning and is inaccurate. However, in the Panel’s view it is
unlikely that a layperson would understand there to be any material difference
between charges being formally put before a court and a person being
charged.
25. In the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Guardian has “taken care
not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted material”. In the alternative,
to the extent there is some ambiguity in the documentation as to whether Mr
Semaan was named in charges against Mr Lufkin which were put before the
court, this does not, in light of the overall context of the Article amount to any
significant inaccuracy which would necessitate any further corrections. The
Panel notes in this regard that the RE has already made a clarification to the
online edition and that what is sought by the Complainant is further
clarification as to the “context” in which the Guardian has obtained its
information. Furthermore, Mr Semaan’s family was afforded the right of reply
and their clear and unambiguous denial of the allegations is contained in both
the online and print editions. For the reasons set out above, the Panel
considers that the Article does not breach Clause 1 of the Code (Accuracy)
and therefore no correction or clarification is required.
Signed:
Signed:
Signed: