02907-25 McCann v The Sun on Sunday

Summary of Complaint

1. Ferne McCann complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “TV Ferne acid fiend gets 'steroid' jab in jail”, published on 22 June 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on the front-page and continued on to pages four and five - reported that the complainant’s ex-partner had allegedly received a steroid injection while serving a custodial sentence. It reported that the complainant’s “acid attacker ex […] was asked, ‘Hey, bruv, what are you doing?’, by a fellow prisoner — before replying: ‘Injecting.’ The exchange was caught on our exclusive video, showing laughing [complainant’s ex-partner] apparently receiving a steroid jab in his buttock from another lag.”

3. The article said that the complainant’s ex-partner “had eight months added to his sentence in 2018 for smuggling in a phone which he used to call Dancing on Ice star Ferne, 34. She had been pregnant with their daughter, now aged seven, when he was jailed.” It further reported that he “started dating former Towie star Ferne in 2016 but she dumped him after the acid attack. She had visited him in jail and revealed she told him: ‘This is the last time you will see either of us. You have ruined our lives.’”

4. The front page included a large photograph of the complainant on holiday, with her ex-partner stood behind her. This photograph also appeared on page five.

5. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline, “Fiends jail jab: Shocking moment Ferne McCann’s acid attacker ex […] is filmed being injected in bum with drugs in jail cell”. This version of the article was published on 21 June 2025.

6. On 21 June, five hours before the online article’s publication, the newspaper contacted the complainant’s representation to inform it that it was going to publish the article under complaint. On 22 June, the day the print article was published, the complainant contacted the newspaper to say the story had “nothing to do” with her. The complainant said the article was deliberately misleading.

7. On 24 June, having not received a response from the newspaper, the complainant contacted it again. She outlined how she believed the newspaper had breached the Code.

8. On 10 July, the complainant complained to IPSO. She said the article breached Clause 9, as she said she had no relevance to the story: what her ex-partner had allegedly done while serving his sentence had no bearing on her. She said she had not consented to being identified in the story and she should not have been named.

9. In addition, the complainant said the article breached Clause 1. She said this was the case as the prominent front-page photograph - which was nine years old and featured her and her ex-partner together - viewed in conjunction with the headline implied wrongdoing on her part. She said this was misleading and distorted. She said both she and her ex-partner were both engaged to other people, making her ties to him less relevant. She said there was no public interest in publishing her connection to him and his alleged new crime.

10. She also said the newspaper’s email of 21 June did not mention her name would appear in the headline or on the front page. She said this was misleading.

11. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2 as she did not consent to the photograph being used in the article. She also said the article discussed her private and family life. She said it was an unjustified intrusion to repeatedly associate her with the ongoing actions of her convicted ex-partner – actions she had no knowledge of or involvement in.

12. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the complainant’s relevance to her ex-partner’s crime was established and that there were, in the public domain, multiple reports of court proceedings which resulted in the ex-partner’s conviction. In these reports, the complainant was named and the relationship examined. To support its position, the newspaper provided links to articles on various news sites reporting on the crime and the ex-partner’s connection to the complainant.

13. The publication said the complainant had further made herself more relevant to her ex-partner’s crimes and current incarceration and provided several examples. It said the complainant had published the statement offering sympathy to his victims and had spoken to Sunday People about the crime in November 2017 - which had also reported that she had visited her ex-partner in prison with her baby.

14. The publication also said that, in November 2022, an anonymous Instagram account had published voice notes recorded by the complainant from several years earlier. The publication said the voice notes referred to one of the acid attack victims as a ‘bitch’. It said the complainant then made a statement in November 2022 to her 2.9 million Instagram followers, apologising to one of the victims in the case. This was followed by a further apology in 2023, on a popular morning television programme.

15. The publication said that the coverage and incidents it had outlined ensured that the complainant would remain associated with her ex-partner’s crime and imprisonment. Therefore, it said, she was genuinely relevant to reporting on this topic.

16. The publication said the article was not inaccurate. It said that neither the headline nor the article implied any kind of wrongdoing. It said, read as a whole, the article was clear the complainant was not involved.

17. In regard to Clause 2, the publication said the photograph of the complainant revealed nothing private about her. It said all photographs depicting her had been published many times before by multiple media outlets.

18. The complainant said the publication had explained why she was relevant to the original crime in 2017 and she did not dispute this historical relevance. However, she said Clause 9 (i) requires that relatives or friends be "genuinely relevant to the story". She said the article under complaint related to her ex-partner’s conduct in prison, rather than his original offence. She said she was not alleged to have been involved in the procurement of the steroid jab and did not comment on this specific incident. The complainant said her link to the original story did not provide the publication a “lifetime pass” to link her to any and every future crime or misdeed allegedly committed by her ex-partner.

19. The publication said the “spirit of the Code” invoked in its preamble was particularly relevant in this instance. It said the purpose of Clause 9 (i) is to prevent friends and relatives of individuals accused of crimes being “tarred with the brush” of proven or alleged criminality, and consequently stigmatised by association. It said prevention of any unwanted association is only warranted and practicable when it does not already exist. It said the complainant and her ex-partner were “inextricably bound together” - to the extent that the details of the offence appeared the complainant’s Wikipedia page, under a headed paragraph.

20. At any rate, the publication said - in the context of reporting allegations that the ex-partner was suspected of smuggling in prohibited items in prison, it was relevant for the article to mention that "he had eight months added to his sentence in 2018 for smuggling in a phone which he used to call Dancing on Ice star Ferne". It said this made the link to the complainant genuinely relevant. Further, it said that the complainant’s ex-partner was seen to be taking steroids in prison, which it considered less serious both reputationally and legally than the crime he was incarcerated for, and to which the complainant was already linked. It said there was no possible additional stigma attached to the complainant, where it was clear from the article that she was not accused of assisting or approving his actions in any way.

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 9 (Reporting of Crime)*

i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.

Findings of the Committee

21. The Committee first considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 9. It was satisfied the complainant was identified in the article and that she could be considered a friend or relative under the terms of Clause 9 – and noted that neither party had contended that this was not the case. The Committee therefore considered the question of whether the complainant was genuinely relevant to the story.

22. The Committee considered it was clear that the complainant was relevant to the crime for which her ex partner had been convicted of – which, it noted, the complainant did not dispute. She had had published a statement which referenced victims and apologised to them for upset her comments had caused; had spoken about the offence and conviction in interviews; and had also commented that she had visited her ex-partner in prison.

23. The Committee noted that, under the terms of Clause 9, there is no time limit for when an individual is no longer relevant to a crime. The Committee understood the complainant’s position that she did not consider herself to be relevant to all reporting involving her ex-partner. However, the Committee noted that the complainant had last spoken publicly about her ex-partner in 2023 – two years before the article’s publication – and that the Committee must ensure it does not interpret the terms of Clause 9 so broadly as to inhibit a newspaper’s freedom to report on criminal offences. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the passage of time between the original offence and the article under complaint meant that the complainant was no longer relevant to the original offence.

24. The complainant’s ex-partner was in prison due to offences he had committed, to which the complainant was genuinely relevant, for the reasons set out above. Therefore, in this instance, the Committee were of the view that the complainant genuinely relevant to the story, which reported on actions he had committed while incarcerated for the earlier acid attack and a phone smuggling offence. As such, there was no breach of Clause 9.

25. The Committee then turned to the complaint under Clause 1. It noted that the article clarified that the complainant was no longer in a relationship with her ex-partner, and the Committee did not consider that the photograph implied that the complainant was involved in his alleged activity in prison or in the earlier acid attack.

26. The Committee considered that the headline – read in isolation - was ambiguous; it could be interpreted as the complainant having been involved in the attack, or on reporting on her involvement with an individual who had perpetrated the attack. However, it noted that the article – in its first line - referred to the complainant’s ex-partner as her “acid attacker ex”. This clarified the nature of the previous relationship, and that their relationship had ended. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider the headline or photograph were inaccurate, misleading or distorted, and was satisfied the headline was supported by the text of the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

27. The complainant also said that the publication’s initial email to her had been misleading - as it had not said her name would appear in the headline or front page. Clause 1 relates to the accuracy of published material, rather than concerns that pre-publication correspondence is inaccurate. The Committee also noted that newspapers are not required to set out in detail how an article might appear to the subject of the article prior to publication. While the prominence of the complainant’s name had not been referenced in the email, the Committee did not consider that this had resulted in the publication of inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information. This was especially the case where there is no requirement for a right to reply in circumstances where an article does not contain any significant inaccuracies. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

28. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concern – under Clause 1 - that there was no public interest in publishing her connection to her ex-partner. The Committee noted that newspapers are entitled to select which material they publish provided this does not otherwise breach the Code – the publication does not have to demonstrate a public interest in the material it publishes, unless this is to justify a potential breach of the Code.

29. The Committee also considered the complainant’s concern that the photograph had been published without her consent in the article. The Committee noted that the complainant accepted that the photograph of her and her ex-partner had appeared in the public domain previously. It also had regard for the content of the photograph - the complainant was pictured with her then partner on a beach and was not seen to be doing anything typically private. For this reason, the Committee did not consider the photograph intruded into the complainant’s expectation of privacy and there was no breach of Clause 2.

30. The Committee finally considered the complaint that associating the complainant with the ongoing actions of her convicted ex-partner breached Clause 2. The Committee noted that the fact of the complainant’s relationship with her ex-partner – and the fact that they share a child - was clearly in the public domain, and had been referenced by the complainant herself in interviews. Given this, the Committee did not consider that this was information over which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and there was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

31. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

32. N/A

Date complaint received: 10/07/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/12/2025