October 13, 2017

Richard Baker complained to IPSO that The Sun on Sunday had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ripper’s best pal is rapist”, published on 23 April 2017.

The article reported comments made by a confidential source that Mr Baker had become friends with another prisoner whilst they were both serving custodial sentences.  It reported that Mr Baker had knocked on his door to introduce himself, and that they had been spending time in each other’s cells.  The article also described Mr Baker as “Britain’s worst serial rapist”, and reported that he had been convicted of sexual offences against twelve women and that he was suspected of having attacked one hundred more.  It reported that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) did not comment on the matter when it was contacted prior to publication.

Mr Baker said that he was not friends with the other prisoner.  He had been into his cell to introduce himself and would sometimes return, but he did not visit the other prisoner regularly.  He also said that he was not “Britain’s worst serial rapist”, as other individuals had been convicted of more sexual offences than he.  Mr Baker also said that he was not suspected of attacking one hundred more women.  He said that at the time of his trial in 1999, it was reported that the police had commented that they believed he might have been responsible for one hundred more attacks.  Mr Baker said that he was not questioned by the police in relation to these attacks, but accepted that he had been interviewed by the police in relation to 13 further assaults following his conviction.

The Committee found that a source of stories in relation to the other prisoner had informed the newspaper that he was friends with Mr Baker.  The newspaper then sought to verify this information with the MOJ, which did not deny the allegations. The complainant was being held in prison and could not easily have been contacted for comment and as such, Mr Baker considered that sufficient care was taken over the accuracy of the claims made about the relationship between him and the other prisoner.  There was no breach of Clause 1(i).

Mr Baker accepted that he had introduced himself to the other prisoner and that he occasionally went into his cell and spoke to him.  The Committee did not consider that it was significantly misleading to characterise this relationship as Mr Baker and the prisoner being “chums”, “best pals”, or that they “got pally”, particularly in circumstances where the nature of the alleged friendship was explained in the article.  Further, given that Mr Baker accepted that he had visited the other prisoner in his cell, it was not significantly inaccurate to report that they had spent time in each other’s cells.  There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

Although Mr Baker said that he was not questioned in relation to a further 100 attacks, it was not disputed that, at the time of his trial in 1999, it was reported that the police had said that they believed the complainant may have attacked up to one hundred more women.  In the circumstances, the Committee did not consider that it was significantly misleading to report that he was “suspected of attacking one hundred more”, particularly where the article reported this as speculation and not as fact.  Further, the newspaper was entitled to characterise Mr Baker as “Britain’s worst serial rapist”, given the comments made by the trial judge and the police at the time of his conviction and the seriousness of the assaults which had been committed by the complainant against particularly vulnerable victims.  The article included details of Mr Baker’s convictions, and the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly misleading in employing this characterisation.  There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.  The complaint was not upheld.  (Decision of the Complaints Committee 07968-17 Baker v The Sun on Sunday — to read the Decision in full, click here).