Guidance summary

Children regularly feature in the news, and a child may need to be interviewed and/or photographed for the purposes of a news story. This guidance highlights parts of the Editors’ Code of Practice and rulings by the Complaints Committee that demonstrate key considerations for journalists and editors when engaging with and reporting on children. The case studies are summaries of the decisions of the Committee, and it is recommended that the decisions are read in full.

This guidance does not replace or supersede the Editors’ Code but is designed to support editors and journalists in applying the Code and to feel confident in their reporting.

The Editors’ Code of Practice

The Editors’ Code of Practice is the framework for the highest professional standards for journalists. It sets out the rules that publications regulated by IPSO must follow. Clauses of the Code relevant to reporting on children include Clause 6 (Children), Clause 7 (Children in sex cases), Clause 9 (Reporting of crime), and the public interest exception for children under 16.

Key points

• It is important to report on children and the issues that affect them
• The Code provides children with a greater level of protection than adults
• Consideration should be given to who can consent for the publication of material involving a child’s private life or welfare, and how that consent is documented
• An exceptional public interest is required to justify a potential breach of the Code involving a child, due to their particularly vulnerable position
• The Code contains specific provisions regarding children who are involved in criminal proceedings, whether as a defendant, witness, or victim

What are the special protections for children?

The Code provides children with a higher level of protection than adults, making clear that their interests are paramount and can only be overridden if there is an exceptional public interest in doing so.

Clause 6, Clause 7, and Clause 9 specifically protect children and their welfare. Each clause specifies the age a child must be to receive this special protection. These are explained below.

Under 16

• Without the agreement of someone with parental responsibility (or similarly responsible adult), children should not be interviewed or photographed in the context of a story that relates to their own or another child’s welfare. This includes comments and photographs that were not obtained by the publication directly.
• Only one individual with parental responsibility needs to provide consent for publication.
• Children (and their parents or guardians) should not be paid for information about their welfare, unless it is clearly in the child’s interest.
• Children who are victims or witnesses of sexual offences should not be identified (even if the law says they can be).

Under 18

• Particular attention should be paid to the vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime.
• Editors should avoid naming children who are arrested, unless the publication can show that their identity as someone connected to the offence is already in the public domain. This does not apply to children who appear in crown court or whose anonymity has been lifted, however, other protections provided by the Code would still apply.

While in education

• All pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion by journalists or the press. “School” has been interpreted by the Complaints Committee to encompass a wide range of educational settings.
• Children must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the school authorities.

Stories about children

Children can often be involved in newsworthy stories, and it is important that issues that affect children are reported on. Clause 6 is not intended to prevent investigative reporting of issues relating to children – or of individuals who have children – even though such reporting may sometimes have an impact on children’s lives (for example, in the case Two complainants v The Courier).

Neither is Clause 6 designed to prevent reporting on specific children. Instead, it ensures that those with responsibility for the child have consented to any interviews with or photographs of the child when the story relates to their welfare, and that the child’s education is not intruded into unnecessarily.

What does “welfare” mean?

The Editors’ Code says that 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. It also says that 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.

A child’s welfare is a general term that covers all aspects of the child’s private life and wellbeing. This could include, for example, anything relating to the child’s health, personal life or safety, or anything that could lead to significant intrusion into the child’s life. Welfare does not mean any information related to a child – for example, a light-hearted report about a child’s favourite flavour of ice cream, or an image of them on a bike in the context of an article that does not divulge personal information about the child would be unlikely to engage the terms of Clause 6 (iii) or (iv). In addition, for this Clause to be engaged, the child would need to be pictured or interviewed within the article. Reporting on a parent’s conviction and briefly mentioning they have children with no further information provided, for example, could impact a child’s private life, but would not breach Clause 6.

Who can give consent?

In 2025, Clause 6 of the Editors’ Code of Practice was updated to provide greater clarity on who can give consent regarding the publication of material related to a child’s welfare.

Clause 6 (iii) now states: “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”. Previously, the Code referred only to custodial parents, whereas now the adult must have legal parental responsibility (or similar).

If a story concerns a child’s welfare and they or another child is to be quoted and/or pictured, an adult with legal parental responsibility for that child must provide consent.

 

---

It is up to the individual publication as to how it obtains and records this consent; for example, some publications have standard forms that they ask the adult to sign. There is no requirement in the Code to obtain consent in writing, but it provides a clear written record in the event of any later dispute.

 

---

A woman v South Wales Argus

This complaint required the Committee to consider who was able to give consent and the steps the publication should take to ensure an adult was in the position to give consent. This consideration prompted the change to Clause 6 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The article was an interview with a man who had a terminal illness. The article gave the child’s name, age and included two photographs of the man with his child.

The Committee noted that, while the article did not make specific reference to the child’s schooling, a child’s time at school can be intruded into by an article’s publication. In this case, the complainant said her child had been approached at school in relation to this article which had impacted their ability to attend school, and the publication had not taken steps to ensure it had the consent of a custodial parent. As such, there was a breach of Clause 6 on this point.

In relation to whether the father was able to provide consent, the Committee said, regardless of whether the man had custodial responsibility for the child, he was clearly their parent and had some degree of responsibility for them. As such, the Committee did not consider the wording of the Clause to be clear as to whether the father would be considered a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult, and so did not make a finding on this point.

Schooling

Clause 6 (i) of the Editors’ Code of Practice states all pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion. The Code refers to “time at school” but the Committee has interpreted this to mean while the child is in mandatory education – hence why this Clause can encompass children up to 18.

For example, in A woman v cornwallive.co.uk, the complainant’s son was not currently attending school but was in full-time education and so Clause 6 (i) did apply.

Public interest

Because of the particularly vulnerable position of children, an exceptional public interest is required to justify a potential breach of the Code. This is evident in Abbas v Sunday Mirror where the publication had demonstrated a consideration of the public interest which was sufficient for the adult pictured in the article, but the Committee did not consider this to be sufficient  to override the paramount interests of the children involved.

Abbas v Sunday Mirror

An article reported the experience of a couple whose daughter had died in Pakistan after she had flown there with her two children. They said they were looking for answers regarding their daughter’s death and “the disappearance of their grandchildren”. The article named the children, gave their ages, and then included images of them. It also detailed different official government departments the couple had contacted for answers.

The publication said publishing information about the children was in the public interest and the pictures showed the children’s likeness in case they were seen.

The Committee considered the article clearly regarded the children’s welfare given it related to their mother’s death and their grandparents’ concern for their whereabouts. The Committee also did not consider that the public interest the publication had cited was “exceptional”, which was required to override the normally paramount interests of children under 16. As such, the article breached Clause 6.

Republishing images

If a publication has an image which was provided for a previous article, journalists should consider asking again for consent to use it in a different context, particularly if this involves a child’s welfare.

A Woman v Hull Daily Mail

An article reported on the conviction of a man for historic child sex offences, featuring a photograph of the man with two children, whose faces were pixelated.

Parental consent had been given for the photograph to be used to publicise the opening of a local venue; however, the newspaper had reused the image to illustrate a report concerning the conviction of a paedophile. The Committee did not consider that the purposes for which consent had been provided covered the use of the photograph in this context. This was a highly sensitive subject, and regardless of the extent to which the children were identifiable in the image, it constituted an issue involving the children’s welfare. The image had been published in this context without parental consent, and as such, there was a breach of Clause 6 (iii).

Pixelation

The Code does not require images of children to be pixelated. But it can be a useful way to reduce the intrusion a child experiences. Previous rulings by the Committee demonstrate its potential as a means to demonstrate consideration of a children’s privacy rights.

For example, in Spain v Mail Online, the article reported on an incident in a coffee shop where the complainant worked and included images of her with a child. The child’s face had been pixelated. The Committee found that the pixelation was sufficient to prevent the identification of the child and so the publication had prevented unnecessary intrusion into the child’s schooling.

In another complaint – Lynch v kentonline.co.uk – the article reported on allegations that a group of girls had been seen swearing and verbally abusing staff and customers at a fast food restaurant and that a security guard had been arrested and charged with “assault with intent to resist arrest”. The article included stills from video footage of the incident and the girls’ faces had been pixelated. The complaint was made on behalf of one of the girls. Clause 9 was engaged as the children were being treated as witnesses to a crime for which the security guard had been arrested. The Committee considered the publication had taken care to obscure the identity of the girls when publishing the images by pixelating their faces and so had satisfied the requirement to pay particular regard to the vulnerable position of children, and there was no breach of Clause 9. The Committee also considered there was no breach of Clause 6, given it was unlikely that the pixelated images would identify the child to anyone who was not already aware of her involvement in the incident.

Key questions

1. Does the information the publication intends to publish relate to a child’s welfare?
2. Has consent been obtained by the parent or guardian to publish the information or photographs?
3. Could publishing the information potentially intrude unnecessarily into a child’s time at school?
4. If publishing the material does appear to raise a breach of the Code, is there an exceptional overriding public interest for publishing it?
5. Are you able to demonstrate that the public interest was proportional to any potential breach of the Code and that it was considered before publication and/or the journalistic activity took place?

Court reporting involving children

The Editors’ Code contains specific provisions regarding children who are involved in criminal proceedings whether as a defendant, witness or victim.

Child defendants

Clause 9 grants children and young people accused of crime additional protections beyond those granted by the law. You should generally avoid naming children under the age of 18 after arrest for a criminal offence but before they appear in a youth court unless you can show that the individual’s name is already in the public domain. This does not restrict the right to name juveniles who appear in a Crown Court where no reporting restriction has been made, or whose anonymity is lifted.

A woman v cornwallive.co.uk

The complaint regarded two comments posted by members of the public on social media under a post by the publication sharing an article about an alleged offence. These comments appeared to identify the complainant’s son as someone arrested in connection with the offence.

The publication provided other social media posts, showing the son’s alleged involvement in the incident was already in the public domain, even though it had not been announced officially. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 9.

The complainant’s son was enrolled in full-time education but did not attend physically due to safety concerns. The Committee noted the terms of Clause 6 (i) apply to children who are in full-time compulsory education, regardless of the educational setting.

The Committee found that the continued publication of a comment publicly identifying the complainant’s son as one of the perpetrators of the alleged crime clearly intruded on his schooling, and that the intrusion was unnecessary. There was a breach of Clause 6.

Reporting restrictions and children

Journalists are allowed to report on proceedings which take place in youth courts. However, there may be reporting restrictions in place. These may have been imposed automatically because of a statutory requirement, or imposed by a judge within a specific case, and they may vary depending on in which nation the proceedings are taking place. Breaching these reporting restrictions would be a contempt of court and may have implications under the Editors’ Code of Practice.

Reporting restrictions are likely to be imposed to grant anonymity to victims, witnesses and defendants under the age of 18 in criminal court proceedings in the Magistrates and Crown Court. Such restrictions may cover not only a child’s name, but also address, school details and photographs of the child. IPSO does not enforce reporting restrictions, but the existence of a reporting restriction might be relevant to a complaint about intrusion or privacy under the Editors’ Code.

There is a discretionary power under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to restrict reporting any matter which may lead to the identification of victims, witnesses and defendants under the age of 18 who appear in Magistrates’ Courts and the Crown Court.

In Scotland, which does not have Magistrates’ or Crown Courts, reporting restrictions are set out in the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act (1995). Section 47 sets out the restrictions on reporting on children aged under 18 who are witnesses, victims, or defendants in court.

A woman v newburytoday.co.uk

The article reported on a court case and included references to the complainant’s daughter, made during the proceedings.

The complainant complained under Clause 9 because her daughter had been a witness in a previous trial and a reporting restriction  was in place in relation to this.

The publication removed the references to the daughter on the same day the complaint was made and then removed the article completely the next day. It said it was not aware of the child’s age when the article was published but, upon being made aware of this fact, it removed the references to the daughter.

The Committee considered that, given the speed with which the article was amended and then removed after the publication became aware of the child’s age, this showed it had paid particular regard to her vulnerable position. As such, there was no breach.

Key questions

1. Has the court imposed any reporting restrictions?
2. Are you aware of the different prohibitions on reporting, either arising from reporting restrictions imposed in the case or automatically by law?
3. Have you carefully considered the position of a child who is a witness to or victim of crime and what information should be included in a story on this issue?

Reporting child sexual abuse

Clause 7 (Children in sex cases)

Child victims and witnesses of sexual offences are among the most vulnerable members of society, and the Code provides appropriately powerful protections for them. Clause 7 specifies that you must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences. Under the law no victim or alleged victim of a sexual offence who is under the age of 16 can waive his or her anonymity, and it also cannot be waived on their behalf. For Clause 7 to be engaged, the person must be a child when the article is published however, if the individual is a victim, then they would still have protection under Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) even if they are now over 16.

The Code says that in any press report of a case involving a sexual offence against a child:

• The child must not be identified.
• The adult may be identified.
• The word “incest” must not be used where a child victim might be identified.
• Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child.

To avoid identifying a child, particular care must be taken in cases when there is a familial relationship between the defendant and the victim. This is because disclosing the familial relationship will increase the likelihood the victim will be identified.

Victims have potentially been identified by descriptions in reports by details such as the location where the offences took place (e.g. the family home) or by the disclosure of dates or times of meetings which would imply a particular relationship.

Publications should also consider whether their reporting will lead to additional information being put into the public domain which, when considered with other public information, could lead to the identification of the child. This is a process known as jigsaw identification. More information regarding this element of reporting on sexual offences can be found in IPSO’s guidance on the subject.

A woman v hertfordshiremercury.co.uk

This case shows how a publication needs to consider what information is necessary to include in an article reporting on a sexual offence involving a child.

The article reported on the conviction of a man who had been found guilty of multiple offences, including sexual abuse involving a child. The article gave the age of the child, and when and how often the abuse took place.

The complainant said that the article breached Clause 7, as she considered readers would be able to work out that the identity of the young victim from the information in the article. She also said a published police report and another newspaper’s article when coupled with the information contained in the article under complaint, led to the victim being identifiable.

While the article did contain some information about the young victim and the circumstances in which the abuse took place, it had omitted other details which may have led readers to identify the victim. Having reviewed the details that had been included, the Committee concluded that they did not identify the victim or otherwise breach Clause 7.

Key questions 

1. What information are you including about the offence that needs to be assessed for its compliance with Clause 7? This could include, for example: the timing (dates/frequency) of the offences, the location of the offences, the connection between the victim and the accused/how they met, or demographic information about the victim (e.g. age, sex).
2. Could a combination of information in the article and and/or information already established in the public domain (for example, through other press coverage) identify the victim and/or witness?

Focusing on children connected with crime

Crime reporting is an incredibly important part of journalism. It serves a vital public interest function and reporting on court proceedings is an essential element of open justice. However, challenging questions arise when there are children involved in or connected to the proceedings.

Children can be involved in crime as witnesses, defendants, or victims. They can also be connected to crime if their parents, guardians, or other family members are victims of, or are convicted of, a crime. Considering the welfare and privacy needs of these children, therefore, is crucial to limit the disruption they experience as a result of their connection to a crime.

This may involve considering thoroughly what information is relevant to reporting on the crime and, if information regarding a child is to be included, how that serves the public interest.

The fact that someone has a child does not mean their crime cannot be reported; the Editors’ Code and the law protect the right to report legal proceedings. Nonetheless, when covering stories relating to criminality, editors maintain the responsibility to consider how their Code obligations might be relevant, including those relating to any children involved.

In A woman v Dover Express, the publication included information about an anonymised Serious Case Review, which looked at the events leading up to the death of a young child. The article had identified the deceased child and her mother as being the subject of the safeguarding report. and included the address where the child had died. This information was potentially intrusive into the lives of the mother’s four other children. The Committee concluded, however, that there was an exceptional public interest given the need to hold the failings of agencies in this case to account.

Particular care should be taken when reporting on the homicide of a parent or child. Journalists are reminded of the requirements of Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) to report sensitively and consider the effect of their behaviour on the family of the deceased.

Social media

Social media is a useful tool for identifying possible stories and contacting individuals for comment. Many children have access to social media and, if their social media is to be used as part of the newsgathering process or included in an article, the protections provided by the Code still apply.

It is important to bear in mind that children may lie about their age on social media; for example, so that they can access the platform. As such, it is worth being more cautious when engaging with people whose profiles show they are between 16 and 18, or where there are clues suggesting they are younger than claimed.

The Radcliffe School v miltonkeynes.co.uk

This complaint regarded a quote from a child that was included within an article. The quote was taken from the child’s social media and the Complaints Committee viewed this as constituting an interview, as the post in question was presented as the child’s response to the allegations of homophobia and bullying at the school.

The article included a child’s words about allegations of bullying in her school environment and linked these allegations to the recent death of her sibling. The Committee noted that the child’s words used in the article were taken from a social media post.

The Committee acknowledged the public interest in reporting on allegations of bullying and homophobia that may have contributed to a pupil’s death. However, it determined the public interest in publishing the comment was not so exceptional as to override the interests of a recently bereaved child. Therefore, it was upheld under Clause 6.

Comments

Comments beneath a publication’s social media posts can fall within IPSO’s remit if the complaint about the comment engages the Editors’ Code and if it remains online after the publication has had a chance to moderate it.

When the article or post being shared on social media relates to children, particularly if it is a court report, the publication may want to consider turning off the comments. This is because members of the public will not be aware of the requirements of the Code and the law. Of course, this is not compulsory, but publications should carefully consider complaints about comments and whether they could be a breach of the Code. Any comments which may represent a breach of the Code should be deleted as promptly as possible.

Key questions:

1. What is the context of the story that has prompted you to look at the child’s social media? Is the story about their, or another child’s, welfare?
2. Are you sure you know how old the person is whose social media you are viewing?

Major incidents

A major incident which a child has been involved in or witnessed will affect their welfare, and the Code is clear that children cannot be photographed or interviewed about their own or another child’s welfare without consent from an adult with legal parental, or similar, responsibility, unless there is an exceptional public interest. This does not only refer to situations where a journalist directly speaks to a child but can also cover comments posted by a child on social media or the publication of pre-existing images of a child.

Journalists must therefore take particular care in relation to any content about a major incident which involves children, considering carefully how to avoid unnecessary intrusion. Although there is a public interest defence available to editors, an exceptional justification would need to be demonstrated.

Key questions:

1. Are there any children at the scene? How will you protect their interests in your reporting?
2. Have you gained consent from someone with legal parental responsibility before interviewing or photographing a child, or before using information from the child’s social media posts?
3. If you are considering using a public interest defence, are you able to demonstrate that it is exceptional?

Other factors to consider

Interviewing a child who is the subject of a story

IPSO does not prescribe how journalists should handle interviews and approaches with subjects of a story, as long as publishers comply with the Editors’ Code of Practice when doing so.

With this in mind, we are sharing feedback from organisations and individuals about what they would like to see when journalists are engaging with children.

When interviewing a child, it may be helpful to use a chaperone. This can be an adult with legal parental responsibility, but also any other trusted adult.

An easy way to navigate issues such as chaperones, sensitive topic reporting and safeguarding in general would be work with charities like YoungMinds who are able to act as a third party for the interviewee and the publication.

 

---

It is also important to clearly convey what the article is about, where it will appear, and – if it is to do so – that the coverage may remain online for a long period.

 

---

Online hoaxes and dangerous challenges

Widespread social media use has brought with it concerns about circulation of material which may encourage vulnerable groups to consider self-harm or suicide. There have been a number of examples of online crazes which appear to encourage vulnerable groups, particularly children and young people, to undertake increasingly risky challenges which have been linked to suicide and self-harm.

There is a public interest in reporting on these challenges. It can raise awareness, signpost parents and carers to support and hold public authorities to account. However, it is worth considering how much information to include, bearing in mind the risk of inspiring similar actions by young people.

Children with disabilities

It may be the case that the story is about children or a child with disabilities. While the usual guidelines set out in the Code apply, for example Clause 6 or Clause 12 (Discrimination), organisations that represent children with disabilities have explained what they consider the best practice when approaching such a story.

These organisations said it is important to amplify the voices of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Presenting their stories clearly and without ascribing blame for a disability, they said, is essential. There is a general concern that these children are not often represented in the press and that when they are featured this is in connection with appeals, tribunal, and broader issues within the education system.

The organisations also highlighted that inclusive reporting and inclusive conduct when approaching children with SEND improves standards for all children. Providing sufficient support before, during, and after engaging with a child in relation to the newsgathering process, they said, was vital for ethical journalism.

Use of names

A number of organisations now recommend that where children’s images are used, the child’s full name should not be included in a caption.

More resources for journalists

Sexual Offences Guidance

Court Reporting Guidance

Social Media Guidance

Resources for the public

Journalism:
children’s rights

External resources

Childnet

childnet.com

A UK-based charity who aim to empower children, young people and those who support them in accessing the internet, as well as working to ensure a safer internet for them to use.

Kids

kids.org.uk

A charity that works to ensure all kinds of children and young people have all kinds of opportunities. It provides a wide range of opportunities and support to children and young people with any special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), and their families throughout all stages of their lives from birth and into adulthood.

Marie Collins Foundation

mariecollinsfoundation.org.uk

An organisation that works in a range of ways to ensure that at every level the needs of victims and survivors are at the forefront of all decision making. It provides support to children, young people and their families affected by technology-assisted child sexual abuse by working with them directly and indirectly. It also influences policy and decision-makers at both a local and national level.

NSPCC

nspcc.org.uk

A national organisation that operates helplines and therapeutic services for children who are victims of abuse. It provides support for families and works with schools and policy makers, as well as conducting research to campaign for change.

YoungMinds

youngminds.org.uk

A charity whose mission is to ensure all young people get the mental health support they need, empower adults to be the best support they can be to the young people in their lives, and to give young people the space and confidence to get their voices heard.