Resolution Statement – 02683-25 Mayo v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Victoria Mayo complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ex-ITV and BBC reporter 'punched and threw chips at her boyfriend in row at a train station'”, published on 19 June 2025.

2. The article reported on a court case in which the complainant was a defendant. It reported a court has heard the complainant “punched her boyfriend and threw chips at him”, and that she was “also said to have pulled [his] hair”. The article went on to report that the “prosecutor said photos of [the boyfriend’s] injuries will also be presented to the court during the trial.” The article included photographs of the complainant.

3. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She disputed the allegations reported in the article – that she pulled her boyfriend’s hair, punched him and that he sustained injuries – were heard in court. She said the hearing was a plea hearing, but not a trial, and these claims were neither presented as evidence nor accepted by the court.

4. The complainant also said the article breached Clauses 2 and 10 as it included photographs of her, taken from her social media account without consent.

5. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report the complainant “punched her boyfriend” and “pulled [his] hair”. It produced the shorthand notes from the journalist who attended the hearing, which the publication said recorded these allegations had been heard in court.

6. The publication accepted it was inaccurate to report that photographs of injuries would be introduced into evidence. It, however, did not accept this error was significant as it: did not form part of the headline; was not an erroneous report of the charge; and was not a misrepresentation of something the complainant was alleged to have done.

7. Turning to Clause 2, the publication did not accept there was a breach of this Clause. It said the images were taken from the complainant’s social media accounts, which were public at the time of the article’s publication, and that they only showed her likeness.

8. The publication also said the complainant’s concern did not engage the terms of Clause 10, where no subterfuge or misrepresentation had taken place.

9. The complainant disputed the authenticity and reliability of the shorthand notes. She said the notes were only produced months after her initial complaint, only consisted of two pages and remained incomplete. She also said the allegations reported in the article were not upheld by the court and added the charge against her was later dropped.

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 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*

i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

Mediated Outcome

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

11. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the article and remove associated off-platform publications.

12. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.

13. 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: 30/06/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 12/02/2026