The Daily Mail has published an apology to Chris Packham and a correction for its inaccurate reporting of Chris’s libel win against Fieldsports Channel Ltd and one of its journalists, Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke.
Chris won his libel case (here) on 6 November 2023 after Fieldsports Channel Ltd admitted it was responsible for false and defamatory publications about Chris and submitted an apology to the court for publishing such “baseless and damaging allegations of dishonesty” that “fell far below the standards expected of responsible, impartial journalists” (see here) and agreed to pay Chris £30,000 in damages and costs, £10,000 of which had already been paid in October.
However, the following day the Daily Mail published an inaccurate article that suggested Chris had sued the wrong company and ‘may not see a penny’ of the damages/costs from Fieldsports Channel Ltd.
This was wholly untrue.
The Daily Mail published its correction and apology in yesterday’s print edition, as follows:
An article on November 7 said that, despite his successful libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd (FCL), Chris Packham ‘may not see a penny’ because he had sued the wrong company. In fact, FCL admitted responsibility in court and the first of three compensation payments has already been made. We apologise for suggesting otherwise.
UPDATE 10 December 2023: Shooting Times forced to publish apology to Chris Packham for inaccurate reporting of his successful libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
it’s about time that newspapers were made to issue an apology the same size as the original article. Don’t think we would see so much false news then.
Bigger than the original and in bold.
”suggesting otherwise” – my arse. Was plain false information. To be expected of that Tory rag.
“IPSO Regulated” is a complete farse.
Cameron “said” he agreed with many of the Leveson recommendations, but declined to enact the required legislation. And then the 2017 Tory manifesto dropped the second part of the Leveson Inquiry entirely.
I once complained to IPSO’s predecessor organisation about an article in the Mail concerning my former area of professional expertise, which was totally inaccutate and verged on defamatory of several folk, including me. Said regulator dismissed it, under the spurious idea that it was an opinion piece. The chair of said regulator may have been a senior figure connected to the Daily Mail, whose name rhymes with a unit of area. Which would be a complete coincidence, of course.
NO DOUBT papers trying to creep into the good books, after printing complete bollocks about Chris, 30k, should of been 60+ k, just to give a true justification of how this effected Chris, his Partner, and family.
“NO DOUBT papers trying to creep into the good books”
Really? Good books? No doubt? By printing the smallest, hypocritical ‘apology’ buried in the depths of the paper?