Terms of reference of The Scott Trust review panel (updated 9 June 2023)
The review panel (“the panel”) was established by The Scott Trust in 2014 to enable individuals who have already had their complaint formally assessed and decided by GNM’s readers’ editor, but are dissatisfied with the outcome, to seek a prompt and efficient review of their complaint.
The review panel will consider only those complaints that fall under one of the 16 sections of the GNM Editors’ Code of Practice. Its role is not to regulate GNM, its journalists or to review complaints against wider GNM guidance.
A request for review will be considered where a substantive complaint was brought to the readers’ editor within four months from the date of publication in print, or 12 months from the date of publication online.
Complainants should request a review form from the readers’ editor office within 28 days of a final decision by the readers’ editor. The completed form should then be returned to the panel contact address within 14 days of receipt.
The review panel does not accept anonymous complaints but may consider publishing anonymised decisions upon the application of the complainant.
Rejected complaints: Where the Readers’ Editor has determined that a complaint falls outside the scope of their remit, such a decision will normally be considered as final. The Review Panel may, in exceptional circumstances, undertake a review of such a decision.
On receipt of such a referral, the review panel’s complaints officer, in liaison with the chair of the review panel, will, in the first instance, consider the complaint and the readers’ editor’s rejection letter to decide whether any further action is needed.
Procedure
The panel will appoint a complaints officer, who will accept requests for review from complainants who are dissatisfied following a final decision of their complaint by the GNM readers’ editor.
The complainant should provide all correspondence that has passed between themselves and the readers’ editor. The complainant should include a covering letter of no more than 500 words explaining why they consider the decision of the readers’ editor to be flawed.
Unless requested by the review panel, no other new or background documents should be included where they were not already provided to the readers’ editor in considering the response.
The complaints officer may undertake an initial review in order to assess whether the complaint falls within the panel’s remit.
The panel will aim to consider the complaint within 3 months of receipt. Where a delay becomes necessary, the complainant, readers’ editor and GNM managing editor will be kept updated on progress.
The review panel may seek clarification of any aspects of the complaint or the readers’ editor assessment as it deems necessary but will not undertake a fresh investigation of the underlying facts; its task is to consider whether the readers’ editor’s decision was reasonable based on the correspondence presented.
The decision of the Review Panel is final. Where the review panel determines there has been a breach of the code, or reconfirms a breach identified by the readers’ editor but differs on the appropriate remedy, the panel may recommend a range of remedies, including corrections, alteration or removal of content, deletion, apologies or providing a right of reply (“the recommendation”).
Where the panel is split as to the recommendation, the chair of the panel will have the deciding vote.
All decisions made by the review panel, whether for or against the complainant, will be published on the Editorial Complaints and Corrections section of the Guardian website. Published decisions will include the name of the complainant. Any concerns about privacy can be discussed between the complainant and the complaints officer in advance. Unless there is an automatic legal right to anonymity, it will be for the panel to consider any request for anonymity in the published ruling, to be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
Where a breach of the code occurs in the print edition, and a published correction is one of the remedies recommended by the review panel, any such correction should appear in the same format
The panel will keep a record of the number and nature of complaints that come before it, and will publish that information in an annual report made available on the readers’ editor webpage.
The panel will report concerns about identifiable patterns in complaints to the managing editor and editor in chief.
Review panel members
The chair of the review panel is John Willis, the former Guardian News & Media external ombudsman, Bafta deputy chairman and chief executive of Mentorn Media.
John is joined on the panel by: the legal and journalism academic Richard Danbury, the media lawyer Valerie Nazareth, and the writer, journalist and FOI expert, Martin Rosenbaum.
The complaints officer is Kirsten Sjøvoll, a full-time practising barrister at Matrix.
New panel members will be appointed for an initial term of four years, which may be extended once by a further period of four years.
Details of the Review Panel’s judgements can be viewed here
Terms updated on 9 June 2023