Complaint
This article, originally headlined “My driving instructor stalker made my life hell”, reported that Ashley Watson had been given a two-year suspended sentence for stalking a woman whose driving instructor he had been. Mr Watson complained that, as well as including specific allegations about his conduct which he had not been given the opportunity to dispute, the article wrongly connected him with concerns about inappropriate or sexual behaviour by driving instructors towards their pupils, whereas the behaviour for which he had been convicted had occurred when the victim was no longer his pupil. In response to his original complaint the headline and text of the article were changed to make clear that, at the time of the offending behaviour, Mr Watson was his victim’s former instructor. Mr Watson asked the ECU to investigate the points of his complaint he considered these changes did not address. The ECU investigated his complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of accuracy, and of the Editorial Guidelines on fairness in relation to right of reply which say “When output makes allegations of wrongdoing, iniquity or incompetence, or lays out a strong and damaging critique of an identifiable individual or organisation, the presumption is that those criticised should be given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations”.
Outcome
The specific statements in the article by Mr Watson’s victim which he contested were:
He would follow me, he would spread lies about me…
If I said I wanted to be left alone he’d send me pictures saying he would end his life…
He went through my bin…
I saw him at the end of the road, sat on the corner. I caught him outside my house looking though my bin…
On the basis of information from the police, photographic evidence seen by the reporter and the terms of the charge to which Mr Watson had pleaded guilty, the ECU did not believe these statements contained any material inaccuracy. Nor were they such as to engage the guidelines on right of reply because, insofar as they alleged wrongdoing, it was entirely of the kind which readers would regard as part and parcel of the offence to which Mr Watson had pleaded guilty, and subjected him to no critique more damaging to him in their eyes than the fact of his guilt. This aspect of the complaint was not upheld.
In relation to connecting Mr Watson with concerns about inappropriate or sexual behaviour of driving instructors towards their pupils, the ECU noted that the article also reported the result of a Freedom of Information request to the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), which disclosed that there had been more than 500 complaints about such behaviour between 2020 and 2023. In the ECU’s view the article in its original form gave the impression that Mr Watson’s was a case in point, even though it did not formulate an explicit allegation to that effect, and the changes in response to his original complaint did not efface that impression. Inappropriate behaviour by a driving instructor towards someone who was not only his pupil but a minor at the time would constitute wrongdoing, distinct from the behaviour for which Mr Watson was convicted, and the suggestion of such conduct would normally require the offer of a right to reply, even if there were evidence that the suggestion was warranted. Accordingly, either the article should not have associated Mr Watson with the concerns disclosed by the DVSA or he should have been offered an opportunity to respond. As the article did associate him with those concerns without giving him such an opportunity, the ECU upheld this aspect of his complaint.
Partly Upheld
Further action
The article has been revised in the light of the finding, which was reported to the management of BBC England and discussed with the editorial team concerned.
