Resolution Statement – 00432-25 A man v Oxford Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. A man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Oxford Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Man accused of assault claims sleep sex disorder”, published on 4 February 2025, and an article headlined “Man cleared of assault”, published on 5 February 2025.

2. The first article reported on the complainant’s trial for assault. It opened by reporting: “AN OXFORD man accused of ‘grinding’ against a woman in bed claims he ‘has a rare sexual sleep disorder’”. It also reported that: “The jury retired on Monday to consider their verdicts, and “[i]t is unknown how long it will take the jury to reach a decision on their verdicts.”

3. The second article reported the outcome of the complainant’s trial – and that: “A jury has acquitted a man accused of ‘grinding’ against a woman in bed.”

4. Both articles reported that the complainant told the court he “possibly suffers some sexsomnia, a sleep disorder that causes people to engage in sexual behaviours while sleeping”. The articles also reported that the sexsomnia had ”allegedly developed after the suicide of his father”, and that it was heard in court that the woman claimed the complainant texted her the following day saying: “I’m sorry for what happened last night.”

5. Substantially similar versions of the articles also appeared online, under the headlines: “Man accused of assault claims sleep sex disorder”, and “Oxford man cleared of sexual assault with sexsomnia defence”, respectively.

6. The complainant complained that the publication of the first article, on 4 February, had breached Clause 1. He said that he had, at 3pm on 3 February, been acquitted by a jury – and that the article had been published without reference to his acquittal, rendering it fundamentally inaccurate.

7. The complainant also complained that both articles gave a misleading impression as to the overall case, and his defence. In particular, he complained that the article suggested the possibility of suffering from sexsomnia formed his “primary defence” – he said that he had categorically denied the allegation, and had defended himself by stating that “if” the event had occurred, “it could only have occurred in his sleep”. The complainant also disputed that it had been heard in court that he had possibly developed the condition after the death of his father.

8. The complainant also disputed where the articles reported he had sent a message saying, “I’m sorry for what happened last night”. He said this suggested he had admitted guilt, and that during the course of the trial, it was agreed as fact that he had messaged: “I’m sorry for whatever happened last night”.

9. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said the first article was written at 11.45am on 3 February with a delayed publication - it said it was unaware the trial had concluded prior to publishing the article, but acknowledged that a verdict was reached later in the afternoon. It said it had clarified the outcome of the trial with the second article, and had also updated its first article.

10. The publication also said that it did not believe any inaccuracy arose from its reporting, and supplied IPSO its notes of the court trial. It disputed that the articles reported “sexsomnia” was the complainant’s primary defence – they simply reported that it was part of his defence. It also stated that the reference to the complainant’s father’s death was made in court.

11. The publication also commented that the court hearings and acquittal were a matter of public interest, which it was entitled to report.

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.

Mediated Outcome

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

13. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication temporarily removed both online articles as a gesture of goodwill. The complainant subsequently requested that the articles remain removed from online publication, and said this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.

14. On 2 October, the publication agreed to the complainant’s request.

15. 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: 04/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/10/2025