00770-25 Aston v The Scottish Sun on Sunday

Summary of Complaint

1. Jacqueline Aston, acting on her own behalf and on behalf of her husband David Aston, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Scottish Sun on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 12 (Discrimination), and Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article headlined “FRIGHTMOVE”, published on 23 February 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page 25 - reported on the complainants’ recent house move. It said: “An oddball couple turfed out their home for waging a three-year hate campaign against their neighbours have moved into a bigger pad 40 miles away”. It also reported the “weirdo pair were ordered to flit by a sheriff after filming one family 68 times in 24 hours and filing dozens of malicious reports about residents to authorities”.

3. It went on to report:

“Disabled author David, 56, and ex-nurse wife Jacqueline, 58, were seen arriving at their new ‘highly desirable’ residence, which has five bedrooms, four bathrooms, three reception rooms and double garage. The couple made a £150,000 profit by selling their old four-bed home for £577,000 after being hit with 15-year non-harassment orders. We told how their vile campaign echoed a plot in motorway-crash survivor David’s book, in which a stroke victim develops super powers to target neighbours he decided were ‘not welcome any more’. [….] After a 21-day trial, the Astons were ordered to pay victims £10,000 in compensation for ‘serious psychological harm’.”

4. The article also said a “victim” of the complainants “told how neighbours clinked glasses and cried tears of joy when the couple were booted out last month. She said […]: ‘People were outside celebrating, hugging and cheering on the day they left. Everybody was clapping, some were crying. It was pure elation.’”

5. The article included: a photograph which showed Mr Aston with a walking aid taken outside the new house with an external wall in the background; a photograph of the complainants’ new road which showed several houses; a photograph of a section of the exterior of the new house which showed a door and two sets of windows; and a smaller photograph of Mrs Aston getting out of their car.

6. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline “FRIGHTMOVE Scots couple turfed out home after hate campaign against neighbours move into bigger pad”. This version was published on 22 February 2025; it included an additional photograph of Mr Aston in a wheelchair being pushed by Mrs Aston which appeared to be taken outside of court. It also included a wide lens photograph of the house.

7. The complainant contacted IPSO on 12 February, prior to the article’s publication. She said she and Mr Aston had just arrived at their new home and had found a reporter working on behalf of the publication waiting for them there. She also said the reporter came to their car and trespassed onto the driveway, and asked twice what it felt like to lose their home. The complainant said they told the reporter they did not want their new address published and he said that that wouldn't happen. She also said she told the reporter that she and Mr Aston did not want anyone knowing which town they were now living in, and the reporter had responded by saying he wouldn't be able to stop that. The complainant said the reporter then asked if they wanted to speak to him, and they told him they did not.

8. On the same day, just over an hour after emailing IPSO, the complainant contacted the newspaper by email and said: “IPSO have been dealing with us and we instruct you as below:- Do not contact my husband or I. Do not photograph my husband or I or our property or vehicle. Cease and go away.”

9. The complainant also said that they had sent another email to the publication on the same day. The complainant provided this email, however it did not appear that the recipient’s email address belonged to anyone at the publication.

10. On 26 February, following the article’s publication, the complainant made a complaint to IPSO. The complainant said the article breached Clause 12 as it referenced the fact that Mr Aston was disabled. She also said that the photographs included in the article – showing him in a wheelchair in the online version, and using a walking aid in both versions of the article - were not relevant to the story.

11. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 1 as she and Mr Aston had not “film[ed] one family 68 times in 24 hours" as it claimed. She said they had actually audio recorded a couple who, they said, owned barking dogs and held parties.

12. The complainant further said it was inaccurate for the article to reference “15-year non-harassment orders". She said Mr Aston had a three-year non-harassment order (NHO), while she had a 15-year NHO. She also said the article inaccurately reported that they were required to pay £10,000 compensation. She said Mr Aston had been ordered to pay £2000 and she had been ordered to pay £10,000, so the total was £12,000. The complainant provided court documents to support her position on these points, though she was unable to provide Mr Aston’s non-harassment order due to a court error.

13. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to describe her as an “ex nurse”. She said she was a fully qualified registered nurse, able to practice with no restrictions whatsoever.

14. The complainant said the article breached Clause 1 as the article described her and Mr Aston as a “Scots couple”, “an oddball couple”, and a “weirdo pair”. She said they were perfectly normal, respectable, professional, and English.

15. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to report the house had four bathrooms – she said it had three.

16. The complainant then said it was inaccurate to describe Mr Aston’s book as one “in which a stroke victim develops super powers to target neighbours he decided were ‘not welcome any more’”. She said the book’s plot in fact dealt with targeting neighbours who decided the protagonist was not welcome anymore.

17. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to refer to one of their previous neighbours as a “victim”. The complainant said the article had also inaccurately reported the “victim’s” first name and that the following passage was inaccurate: “[the victim] told how neighbours clinked glasses and cried tears of joy when the couple were booted out last month. She said […]: ‘People were outside celebrating, hugging and cheering on the day they left. Everybody was clapping, some were crying. It was pure elation’”. She said that no such celebration took place, as only the alleged victim and her husband were present when the complainants had left.

18. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2. She said they had told the reporter not to take photographs of them or their home and not to publish any material which would reveal where they lived. However, despite this request, the newspaper had published photographs of them and their home.

19. The complainant also said that the conduct of the journalist working on behalf of the newspaper breached Clause 3. She said this was the case as she and Mr Aston had asked the newspaper - in writing - not to harass them, and had asked the photographer not to photograph or film them or any part of their property. However, the journalist had ignored these requests.

20. The complainant set out her account of the interaction with the reporter outside her home. She said she had asked “can I help you?" and he had responded "I am from The Scottish Sun and I'd like to know how you're feeling about losing your home? How does it feel to have lost where you live? Would you want to talk to me about it?". The complainant said she responded “no” to this.

21. The complainant also said the journalist was talking loudly and she instructed him to “not take photographs of us, our property or any part of our lives" and she and Mr Aston did not want any interference by the journalist or anyone else. She said the photographer – a different person from the journalist who approached them – had taken some photographs of the property before and after she asked him to desist.

22. The complainant also said the article had breached Clause 4. She said that she and Mr Aston were involved in ongoing legal proceedings and were in shock, and that the article and approach from the journalist intruded into this shock.

23. The complainant said that the publication had also breached Clause 14 by obtaining the new address, which she said was private.

24. The publication was made aware of the complaint on 5 March. It did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the information regarding Mr Aston’s disability had been heard in open court and formed part of his defence during legal proceedings against him. It further said the parallels between the real-life case and elements of Mr Aston's book - referenced in the article – made his disability genuinely relevant to the article’s overarching narrative.

25. To support its position on this point, the publication provided the court reporter’s notes from the proceedings, which demonstrated that the complainants’ solicitors had referenced Mr Aston’s disability.

26. The publication said witnesses had described the plot of the novel during court proceedings, as they considered it disturbing in the context of the complainants’ behaviour. It provided the following excerpt from the notes to support its position on this point: “another victim, told the court of his reaction when he found David Aston’s online profile and read the description of the novel in April 2020: ‘I’m shaking at the moment just thinking about this […] I was astonished and frightened. […] We were almost living through what we were reading here’”.

27. The newspaper also provided a synopsis of the book, which said the protagonist had had a stroke and was physically disabled following a car crash. The publication also provided excerpts from the novel: “This was great fun. To start with, he set about dealing with the local neighbourhood, where he lived, as since him [sic] having the stroke they had decided that he was not welcome there anymore. He became too tired to do everyone in one go, so he spent a period of time deciding who to do when. He also had to decide what would happen to each of them. Dave had a seemingly endless list of things wrong with him and so he decided he would let all of them have a taster of the illnesses he had. This was very amusing but soon he realised that it was selfish and not good use of the power. He decided he would use it to make bad things happen to people who were behaving badly."

28. Regarding the article’s claim that the complainants filmed one family “68 times in 24 hours”, the newspaper said they had been found guilty of recording one neighbour 248 times, including 67 recordings in one day. It said this was heard in open court and they were convicted on this evidence. The publication provided copies of the court reporter’s notes. The notes said: “One of the days was my sister's birthday and they had recorded us 67 times that day.”

29. The publication said the reporter could not find a reference to the lawyer or sheriff having used the “67” figure in his notes. However, it confirmed that the sheriff had referenced the fact that the complainants had filmed their neighbours 248 times in his hour-long speech when he found them guilty. The reporter said the procurator fiscal may have mentioned it in her closing speech, however the reporter was not in court that day. The publication said the reporter, after being made aware of the complaint, had contacted the victim who confirmed the evidence she gave to the court was that she had been filmed 67 times in one day.

30. The publication said, based on the complainant’s position, the total duration of the non-harassment orders against her and Mr Aston totalled 18 years. It also noted that a condition of the complainant’s order was that she could not enter the street for 15 years, which effectively required both of them to sell their previous house and move. The publication also provided court notes to show it had taken care. In relation to Mrs Aston the notes said: “NHO - 15 yrs (Non Harassment Order - 15 years)”. For Mr Aston, the notes said: “NHO - same terms (Non Harassment Order - same terms) 15 yrs (15 years)”. The publication said that the article accurately reported what was heard in court.

31. It said, therefore, it was satisfied that there was no significant inaccuracy in its reporting on this point. However, it said it was happy to amend the article to state that the complainant and Mr Aston had a combined 18 years of non-harassment orders, rather than 15.

32. The publication said that the article was not significantly inaccurate to report that the complainants had been ordered to pay £10,000 in compensation – rather than £12,000, as the complainant contended. It said the reporter accepted he had made an error when providing his copy to the publication, and had mistakenly said the total figure was £10,000. On 15 April, the publication offered to publish a footnote correction to address the compensation and non-harassment order:

“An earlier version of this article said that the Astons had been 'hit with 15-year non-harassment orders' (NHOs). Their combined NHOs in fact totalled 18 years. They were also ordered to pay a total of £12,000 in compensation to their victims, not £10,000 as originally reported. The article has been amended.”

It also offered to publish the following correction in its Corrections and Clarifications column in print:

“A Feb 23rd article said that David and Jacqueline Aston had been 'hit with 15-year non-harassment orders' (NHOs) for harassing their neighbours. Their combined NHOs in fact totalled 18 years. They were also ordered to pay a total of £12,000 in compensation to their victims, not £10,000 as reported.”

33. The publication said that it was not inaccurate to refer to the complainant as an “ex-nurse”. It said the court documents the complainant supplied during the complaint confirmed she was not a practising nurse.

34. Regarding the complaint over the use of the term “Scots”, the publication said the couple lived in Scotland and had done so for a number of years. It did not, therefore, accept that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point. It also said the phrases “oddball” and “weirdo” were subjective characterisations and recognisable as such – and, therefore, did not amount to inaccurate information.

35. Turning to the number of bathrooms the house had, the newspaper provided a floor plan of the house. This showed three bathrooms and one half-bathroom. The publication said reporting there were four bathrooms was not significantly inaccurate.

36. Turning to the article’s description of the book, the publication said readers would take the passage to mean that there were similarities between elements of a plot in Mr Aston's book and his situation in real life. It said this was not inaccurate.

37. In regard to the comments made by the complainants’ previous neighbour, the publication said it had spoken to the woman, and she had told it that the party in question was held after the complainants were forced to leave the street. It said, therefore, the complainants were not in a position to disprove this, as they were not present at the party in question. It also said it was not inaccurate to describe her as a “victim” where she was found to be a victim by the court.

38. The publication did not accept that the publication had breached Clause 2 or Clause 3. Turning first to the interaction between the reporter and the complainant, it said the photographs in the article had been taken from a public road, and showed the complainants as they got out of their car on a wide driveway, in a manner clearly visible from the street. Turning next to the verbal exchange between the complainant and its reporter, it said the reporter was standing on the pavement – and not on the complainant’s property during the 56 second encounter, therefore he was not trespassing as alleged by the complainant. It said the complainant had said she did not want to speak about their situation and did not want a story in the paper, but that the reporter gave no assurance that no story would be published. It said he was polite and cordial throughout the interaction. It added there was no mention of photographs during the interaction, and the complainant did not ask that she not be photographed.

39. It said it received the email of 12 February – in which the complainant requested that she not be photographed - after the interaction. It did not, therefore, accept that it had ignored a request to desist from the complainant. To support its position, it provided a recording of the interaction between the complainant and the reporter outside their property:

Reporter: Hello

Mrs Aston: [Inaudible]

Reporter: Yes, it’s Mrs Aston isn’t it? Hi Mrs Aston, my names [name] I’m a reporter for the Scottish sun newspaper. Obviously there’s been a lot of coverage on the court case and the fact that you guys were forced effectively to move house. You’ve obviously moved down to a property here. We were just wondering if you wanted to talk to us about being forced from your house and having to start over again and that kind of stuff?

Mrs Aston: No and I don’t want it in the paper where we are either.

Reporter: I mean we wouldn’t print your address.

Mrs Aston: No no no - at all I mean, even without speaking to you, you know.

Reporter: What do you mean sorry?

Mrs Aston: I don’t want it in the paper where we live.

Reporter: That’s what I’m saying, we would never print your address

Mrs Aston: I don’t even want the town.

Reporter: Right well I don’t know if that’s up for negotiation to be honest.

Mrs Aston: I’m not going to be speaking.

Reporter: Ok, no comment at all. Fair enough. 

40. The publication also noted the article did not report the town, the address, or any other details about where they lived. It said that the photographs of the house included in the article were tightly cropped, which made it impossible to identify the street or any significant landmarks.

41. The publication did not accept Clause 4 was engaged. It said the complainants having to leave their home was a direct reflection of the gravity of their actions, and was not a case involving grief or shock. It added that the reporter and photographer behaved at all times with discretion and politeness while reporting a matter of significant public interest.

42. The publication did not accept that the terms of Clause 14 were breached, and said it had obtained the address from a source who had recognised the complainants.

43. The complainant disputed the publication’s version of events and said that the reporter was trespassing and standing on their land. She also said that the recording did not depict the interaction between Mr Aston and the reporter, which indicated the recording had been edited.

44. The complainant provided a video recording of an interaction she had had with a photographer. The video showed the pavement the complainant was standing on. She said this was recorded on 12 February outside her home. The recording included the following dialogue:

Mrs Aston: …little chat with this photographer.

[Inaudible]

Mrs Aston: Excuse me I just want to say you’ve had more than enough photographs of me and my disabled husband ok? So I’d appreciate you not publishing anymore. You’ve done it with my house where I live, you’ve done it with me at court, you’ve got enough.

Photographer: Don’t intimidate me.

Mrs Aston: I’m not intimidating you, I’m telling you you’ve got enough photographs of me.

Photographer: Don’t raise your voice to me, don’t raise you voice to me.

[ unintelligible other voice]

Mrs Aston: He’s got enough.

45. Regarding the number of times the complainants had recorded their neighbour, the complainant said the reporter was not at court on the day of the closing speech, and therefore made up parts of the story.

46. In response to the complainant’s claim that the publication had only provided a partial recording, the publication said its recording was not edited and had provided the entirety of the encounter. Turning to the complainant’s alternative recording, the publication said it was not a recording of the encounter between her and its reporter on 12 February. It said the voices did not match those of the journalist and photographer involved, and it was not a journalist who was working on behalf of the publication. It further said that the metadata confirmed the video had been recorded on 24 October 2024 – the date the complainants attended court – rather than on 12 February 2025, the day she was approached by its reporter. It said that the pavement looked similar to that outside Edinburgh Sheriff Court and provided photographs of the pavement in question, which it said supported its position.

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 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

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 12 (Discrimination)

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Clause 14 (Confidential sources)

Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

Findings of the Committee

47. The Committee first considered whether the reference to Mr Aston’s disability breached the terms of Clause 12. It noted that the article reported on the aftermath of a court-case involving the two complainants – which resulted in the complainants having to sell their home – and that Mr Aston’s disability had been referenced during these proceedings.

48. The Committee also had regard for the fact that Mr Aston’s novel had been referenced in court by witnesses, who had commented on the similarities between the protagonist’s behaviour in the novel - who was disabled - and the behaviour of Mr Aston. Therefore the reference to his disability was genuinely relevant and as such, there was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

49. Turning to the photographs of the complainant using walking aids and being pushed in a wheelchair, to the extent that the published photographs revealed that Mr Aston had a disability, any such inference which could be drawn from the photographs was relevant for the reasons set out above. There was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

50. The complainant said the article breached Clause 1 as they did not “film one family 68 times in 24 hours", as reported. The publication had provided the reporter’s notes from court which recorded a witness’ comments: “One of the days was my sister's birthday and they had recorded us 67 times that day”.

51. The reporter’s notes said the complainants had recorded their neighbours 67 times, however the article said they had recorded their neighbours 68 times. While this was inaccurate, the Committee considered this to be a straightforward typographical error, and did not represent a failure in the publication’s processes. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider there had been a failure to take care. For this reason, there was not breach of Clause 1 (i).

52. The Committee next considered whether the above reference was significantly inaccurate and in need of correction. Where the difference between 67 and 68 was a single digit, the Committee did not consider the reference to be significantly inaccurate, particularly where it was not in dispute the complainants had recorded the victim a large number of times. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

53. The Committee considered the article’s reference to “15-year non-harassment orders". It noted that the publication had demonstrated that this reference had been heard in court by providing the reporter’s notes. It further noted that there appeared to have been some confusion in relation to the husband’s NHO, and that the complainant had said that she had not received a copy of the order from the court. As such – and absent of any information to the contrary regarding what had been heard in court - the Committee was satisfied the publication had taken sufficient steps to accurately report what was heard in court. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

54. The Committee next considered whether the reference was significantly inaccurate and in need of a correction. In this instance, the Committee noted that the reference, “[t]he couple made a £150,000 profit […] after being hit with 15-year non-harassment orders” referred to the complainants as a couple rather than individuals. The article did not claim that the complainant’s husband had received 15 years. At any rate, where it was not in dispute that a 15 year non-harassment order had been issued, and this had been referenced in court, the article was not significantly inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

55. Turning to the claim that the complainant and her husband were ordered to pay victims £10,000 in compensation for ‘serious psychological harm’, the Committee noted that the reporter had made an error in recording the correct amount when passing the copy to the publication However, the Committee again considered that this appeared to be a typographical error on the part of the reporter, rather than a failure on the part of the publication to ensure the article was accurate. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 (i). The Committee next considered whether this point represented a significant inaccuracy in need of correction as required by the terms of Clause 1 (ii). Where the article had stated they were ordered to pay £10,000, rather than £12,000, the Committee did not consider the difference in amounts was significant in context of the article as a whole, particularly where the article focused on the complainants’ recent move. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

56. The Committee next considered the article’s claim that the complainant was an “ex-nurse”. Where she was not currently working as a nurse, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to refer to the complainant as an “ex-nurse”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

57. It was not inaccurate to refer to the complainants as “Scots couple” where they lived in Scotland. The Committee also considered that the terms “an oddball couple” or “weirdo pair” were subjective in nature, and this was clear from the article. It further noted that the article set out the basis for these characterisations by explaining: “their vile campaign echoed a plot in motorway-crash survivor David’s book” and that the court heard they had caused “serious psychological harm”. While it understood the complainant’s disagreed with these descriptions, the publication was entitled to set out its view on the complainant’s conduct, provided the factual basis for this view was not inaccurate. In such circumstances the Committee did not consider that the inclusion of the publication’s characterisations amounted to an inaccuracy in breach of Clause 1.

58. The Committee next considered the article’s reference to four bathrooms. Where the new house contained three bathrooms and half-bathroom, it did not consider the reference to four bathrooms to be inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

59. The Committee noted that it was not in dispute that the complainant’s husband’s novel described a man who was feuding with his neighbours and that the protagonist would “make bad things happen to people who were behaving badly“. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to claim that protagonist was "target[ing] neighbours he decided were not welcome anymore". There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

60. Turning to the article’s reference to a named individual as a “victim”, the Committee noted that they were a recipient of the conduct for which the complainants had been convicted and therefore it was not inaccurate to refer to them as a “victim”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point. It further noted that it was for the individual to make a complaint regarding the accuracy of their name and therefore did not consider this aspect of the complaint.

61. The Committee then considered the ”victim’s” comments about the neighbours’ celebration, as reported in the article. The Committee noted that the complainants were not in a position to dispute the individual’s account, given the celebration appeared to take place after they had left the street. As such, the Committee considered there was not sufficient information before it to find that the reference was inaccurate, misleading or distorted and there was no breach of Clause 1.

62. The Committee next turned to the complaint raised under Clause 2. The Committee noted that the photographs showed the complainants arriving home, the outside of their new house, and the street they had moved to. The photographs did not depict the interior of their home and photographs of the complainants and their home showed what would be visible to passers-by. The photographs also did not show the complainant’s doing anything private; rather, they were but simply exiting their car.

63. The Committee further noted that the article did not name the new town or street in which they had moved to. The photographs did not reveal any identifying information such as a door number, or the road or town name and therefore the Committee were of the view that the complainant’s home was not identifiable. For these reasons there was no breach of Clause 2.

64. The Committee considered whether a reporter working on behalf of the publication had breached Clause 3. It reviewed the recording with the journalist, which tallied with the complainant’s original account of the interaction. It noted that the reporter was polite, introduced himself, and stated which publication he was working for. The Committee noted that newspapers are entitled to approach individuals for comment and photograph them provided no request to desist has been made – and that merely approaching the complainants would not, therefore, represent a breach of the Code in and of itself. Once the complainant had made clear she did not want to make a comment, the reporter left.

65. The Committee noted that the complainants had sent a request to desist following their interaction with the journalist at their home, however it did not appear that any request to desist from contacting them or taking photographs has been made to the publication prior to interaction at their home.

66. The Committee next considered the further video provided by the complainants, which they said demonstrated that they had requested the photographer desist from taking photographs of them at the time. It acknowledged that the provenance of the video was unclear, however metadata indicated it was filmed in 2024. Given this, there was no basis to find that the photographer in the video was working for the publication – and, therefore, that a request to desist had been made to the photographer working on behalf of the publication prior to the complainants being photographed in 2025. As such, the Committee did not consider the reporter or photographer’s conduct constituted a breach of Clause 3.

67. The Committee next considered Clause 4. The Committee acknowledged that the article may have been upsetting for the complainants to read, however it noted that the article reported on the repercussions of the complainants’ recent court case, namely that the complainants were required to move house. The Committee did not consider that the article related to the complainants’ grief or shock, and there was no breach of Clause 4.

68. Clause 14 relates to the moral obligation of journalists to protect their confidential sources of information. The complainant had not acted as a confidential source of information for the newspaper, and therefore there was no breach of the Code on this point.

Conclusions

69. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

70. N/A

Date complaint received: 26/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/08/2025