Resolution Statement – 02687-25 Mayo v thesun.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Victoria Mayo complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “SICK 'SPAT' Former ITV presenter ‘punched boyfriend and chucked her chips at him during bust up at train station’”, published on 19 June 2025.

2. The article reported on court case in which the complainant was a defendant. It reported that the complainant “who also worked for the BBC, [was] accused of assaulting” her boyfriend. It also reported that “the alleged attack had been recorded on CCTV” which showed the complainant “allegedly ‘pull[ed his] hair, punch[ed] him and [threw] chips at him”. The article further said that “photos of [the boyfriend’s] injuries will also be presented to the court.” The article was accompanied by photographs of the complainant.

3. The article also included a video containing the following captions: "[the complainant] reportedly punched [her boyfriend] and threw chips at him during a heated argument"; "Magistrates were told [the complainant] also allegedly pulled [his] hair"; and "Prosecutors plan to present [...] photographs of [his] injuries as evidence at the coming trial".

4. Further, a TikTok video was posted on the publication’s social media account repeating the headline and the first five paragraphs of the article.

5. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She disputed the allegations reported in the article and TikTok video – that she pulled her boyfriend’s hair, punched him and 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.

6. Further, she said the article and TikTok video was inaccurate to report she was a “former ITV presenter” and implied she held a presenting role at the BBC. Rather, she said she worked as a freelance journalist for both organisations and never held a presenter position.

7. The complainant also said the article and video breached Clauses 2 and 10 as they included photographs of her, that had been taken from her social media account without consent.

8. The publication said it relied on the reporting from another publication and accepted the article was inaccurate. However, it referred to the case summary prepared by the prosecution, and said the complainant was accused by her boyfriend of punching him in the face and throwing “takeaway” at him. The publication noted this formed part of the formal charges against the complainant and took the view that it was not significantly inaccurate to report the complainant punched him.

9. While the publication accepted the complainant’s boyfriend did not accuse her of pulling his hair, it said he did accuse her of throwing a hairbrush at him in his witness statement, which also formed part of the case against the complainant. The publication therefore did not consider there was a significant inaccuracy in the article.

10. Further, the publication said the article did not report the complainant’s boyfriend had suffered any injuries. It also said she did not produce any evidence to show the prosecutor did not claim in court that photographs of her boyfriend’s injuries would be presented to the court.

11. The publication also noted the complainant described herself as a “BBC Broadcast and Travel Presenter” on her social media account. It also said the discrepancy as to whether she was a presenter for the BBC or ITV was not significant in the context of the article.

12. Turning to Clause 2, the publication said the photographs in the article were taken from the complainant’s public social media account and did not depict any private information. Where the photographs were already in the public domain, the complainant could not have any reasonable expectation of privacy.

13. The publication also said the complainant’s concern did not engage the terms of Clause 10, where it did not relate to photographs and audio obtained by subterfuge.

14. The complainant did not accept the publication’s position. She said the allegations reported in the article were not upheld by the court and added that the charge against her was later dropped. She disputed the inaccuracy in her employment history was insignificant because it was used to sensationalise the story.

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

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

16. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the article, the video embedded in the article, and the video published on TikTok.

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

18. 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