Resolution Statement – 06085-25 A complainant v dailymail.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. A complainant complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailymail.co.uk breached Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined: “Councillor strangled partner over sarcastic comment while watching TV show Married At First Sight together, court hears”, published on 5 August 2025.

2. The article - which appeared online only - reported on an ongoing court case in which the complainant was the victim of an alleged assault by their partner. The article included details of the alleged assault, and reported statements made by the complainant at the trial.

3. The article also reported photographs of the complainant and their partner together, as well as images of them with their child – the child appeared both pixilated, and unpixellated, in the different images. One unpixellated image appeared to show the complainant and their partner in hospital, lying on a hospital bed, holding their child.

4. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 2 (Privacy) because it reported their full name, and an image of them and their child, which they did not consent to. They also complained that identifying information about them and their child had been published in connection with the court case.

5. They complained that the article breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) because – alongside their name and photograph - it reported details of the alleged assault without sensitivity and due care.

6. The complainant said the article breached Clause 6 (Children) because it contained images of their child, who was not connected to the story, in coverage of a domestic violence court case. Consent had not been given for the photographs of their child to be used – the complainant considered the publication of the images to be unjustified.

7. IPSO informed the publication that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code on 5 January. In response, in direct correspondence with the complainant, the publication removed all images from the article in which the complainant’s child featured.

8. The publication denied any breach of the Editors’ Code. It said the article reported on information heard in open court, which was not subject to a reporting restriction. It also said the complainant’s child was not identifiable in the article.

9. The complainant said the removal of images that included their child was not sufficient to resolve their complaint, as they remained concerned about their own identification.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Clause 6 (Children)*

i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.

ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the school authorities.

iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless an adult with legal parental responsibility or similarly responsible adult consents.

iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child’s interest.

v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.

Mediated Outcome

9. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

10. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered to additionally remove all identifying information relating to the complainant from the article.

11. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to their satisfaction, and on 25 February, the publication made the agreed amendments to the article – references to the complainant’s name, and all photographs of them, were removed from the article.

12. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 26/11/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/02/2026