03220-25 A woman v Northwich Guardian

Summary of Complaint

1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Northwich Guardian breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 11 (Victims of Sexual Assault) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article published in mid-2025.

2. This decision has been written in general terms, to avoid identifying an alleged victim of a sexual offence

3. The article reported on a court case against the complainant. It reported the complainant’s street level address, and reported that she engaged in a number of harassing behaviours against an individual. One of these behaviours was also referenced in the article's headline.

4. Further to this, the article reported that the complainant had pleaded guilty to a specific, named charge. It went on to report that the complainant had been fined. 

5. The article also reported that the complainant had also been given a restraining order, which imposed specific conditions upon her. 

6. The article also appeared online. A link to the article also appeared on the publication’s Facebook page.

7. On 11 July, following the publication of the online article, the complainant complained directly to the publication. She subsequently complained to IPSO on 5 August. IPSO made the publication aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Code on 21 August.

8. The complainant said that the article included numerous inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1. Firstly, she complained that the reporter had only been present at her sentencing hearing. She also said that the police had advised at an earlier hearing that many of the accusations against her were not true. She added she had only been charged with one specific, harassing behaviour – she disputed the others attributed to her in the article had happened. 

9. In support of her position, she supplied an image of her formal charges, which referred to the complainant engaging in a specific, harassing behaviour.

10. The complainant also stated that her case was under appeal, and a separate investigation into the other individual was ongoing.

11. The complainant also said the article had inaccurately reported that she had been given a fine. In support of her position on this point, she supplied an email from the court – sent after the publication of the article - which stated that her fine no longer needed to be paid. The complainant said the fine had been removed following “further investigations”. 

12. The complainant also said that the article was inaccurate where it reported one specific condition of her restraining order.

13. The complainant complained that the article breached Clause 2 because it included her parent’s address – she said that she did not live at the address.

14. Further, the complainant complained that the article breached Clause 11 because she said she was a victim of sexual assault.

15. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said it believed its article was an accurate report of what had been heard in court. It said that it had not been present at the first hearing, at which the complainant said the police told her allegations made by the other individual were inaccurate, but had been present at her sentencing hearing – at the second hearing, the allegedly discredited claims had been read out by the prosecutor.

16. In support of its position, it supplied its reporter’s notes from the hearing – the notes made reference to the complainant engaging in the behaviours attributed to her in the article. 

17. The publication noted the complainant’s position that her fine had later been quashed. Nevertheless, it considered that it was accurate to report that she had been fined at the sentencing hearing it had attended. In support of its position, it supplied its reporter’s court notes, as well as the court register – it said these demonstrated that the complainant had been fined, as reported in the article.

18. Notwithstanding the above, on 4 September and 14 days after it was made aware of the alleged inaccuracy regarding the fine – which was first raised in the complainant’s complaint to IPSO, and not her direct complaint to the publication - it said it was willing to add a clarification to its online article now the fine had been quashed. It also stated that it would be happy to publish a print clarification on the same page as where the article appeared, or further forward, of its print edition.

19. The publication accepted that there was an error in the article in respect of reporting one condition of the complainant’s restraining order. This had arisen from its reading of a court register; however, it considered this a minor error, and amended its online article.

20. The publication did not accept any breach of Clause 2 – it noted that it was entitled to report information heard in court, and it said the reported address had been heard in court. It said that no reporting restrictions were imposed in relation to the address, and noted that the address also appeared on the court register.

21. The publication said that the proceedings upon which the article reported did not involve allegations of sexual assault.

22. In response, the complainant said that the reporter’s notes were incorrect. She also provided two letters from her Probation Officer, one of which stated that the complainant had engaged in the one form of harassing behaviour referenced in her charge sheet – and that: “I can confirm that this is the only thing that [the complainant] was charged with and any other information reported is false information.”

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator. 

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault)

The press must not identify or publish material likely to lead to the identification of a victim of sexual assault unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so. Journalists are entitled to make enquiries but must take care and exercise discretion to avoid the unjustified disclosure of the identity of a victim of sexual assault.

Findings of the Committee

23. Publications are required to accurately report what is heard in court; they are not responsible for the accuracy of what is heard by the court.

24. The Committee began with the complainant’s concern that the article inaccurately reported she had been fined. Neither party disputed that the complainant had been fined at her sentencing hearing, or that the fine had subsequently been quashed. Accordingly, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate, distorted, or misleading to report this – the article was an accurate record of the sentencing hearing on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1, although the Committee welcomed that the publication had offered to amend the online article on this point.

25. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concern that the article had inaccurately reported she had engaged in a number of harassing behaviours. 

26. It was not disputed by either party that the complainant had been found to have harassed the other individual in one specific manner – this was set out in the formal charge sheet the complainant had supplied to IPSO. The Committee also noted that the complainant did not appear to dispute that the rest of the allegations were heard in court – her concern was that the statements had earlier been disproven. The Committee did not consider this had been demonstrated to be the case, given the newspaper had been able to supply notes taken at the complainant’s sentencing hearing which referenced these claims.

27. The Committee also noted that the article made clear the precise offence for which the complainant had been charged. Given this, and where the newspaper was only responsible for accurately reporting what had been heard in court, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on these points. There was no breach of Clause 1.

28. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concern that the article inaccurately reported a condition of her restraining order. It concluded that the article was inaccurate on this point.

29. The Committee did not consider, however, that the inaccuracy had come about due to a lack of care on the part of the publication – the Committee considered it likely a result of human error that the newspaper had inadvertently misreported a detail of the condition of the restraining order, given the language of the court register itself. This was particularly the case where the newspaper had demonstrated the care taken over its article as a whole – it had supplied both its reporter’s notes and the court register – and the article was, otherwise, accurate.

30. The Committee also did not consider this constituted a significant inaccuracy: it did not affect the overall accuracy of the article on this point, namely that a restraining order had been imposed with certain conditions. For these reasons, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

31. The Committee also noted the complainant’s concern that her conviction was being appealed, and that investigations were separately ongoing into the other individual’s behaviour. It noted that, while this may be the case, it did not mean that the newspaper had breached the Code by reporting on her conviction. There was no breach of Clause 1.

32. The Committee then turned to Clause 2, and the complainant’s concern that the article reported her parent’s address. The Committee noted that the complaint was being made on her behalf - therefore, the Committee considered only whether reporting the address intruded into the complainant’s privacy.

33. The Committee noted that newspapers are generally entitled to report information that has been disclosed in open court and is not subject to a reporting restriction – and that a defendant’s address would typically be given in court, and that it helps to accurately identify defendants. For these reasons, the Committee did not consider there a reasonable expectation of privacy over the address – which appeared on the court register, as provided by the newspaper - and its publication did not represent an intrusion into the complainant’s private or home life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

34. The Committee then turned to Clause 11. It was clear that Clause 11 is identified to prevent people being identified as victims of a sexual offence – it does not prevent the identification of victims in any separate, unrelated context. The article did not identify the complainant as a victim of sexual assault and there was, therefore, no breach of Clause 11.

Conclusions

35. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 05/08/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/03/2026

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.