03227-25 Myatt v County Press

Summary of Complaint

1. Edward Myatt complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that County Press breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Uber Eats driver harassed wife and caused lockdown”, published on 8 August 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page 15 – reported on the complainant’s sentencing after an incident at a nursery which led to him being found guilty of three offences including common assault. The article reported the prosecutor in the case “said when [the complainant] was stopped by a nursery manager, he forced his way into the building and began speaking manically, prompting the nursery to evacuate and the rest of [the nursery] to go into lockdown - a serious incident that was reported by the County Press at the time. Police arrived to find Myatt agitated and taking his clothes off inside the nursery, [the] court heard.”

3. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline “Isle of Wight Uber Eats driver caused school lockdown.” This version of the article was published on 5 August 2025.

4. The complainant contacted the newspaper on 5 August and said the article was inaccurate to report that police had arrived to find him “agitated and taking his clothes off inside the nursery.” He said at no point during the incident had he undressed.

5. On 6 August, the publication responded to the complainant and said the article reported what was heard in court. It also said the reference under complaint was attributed to the prosecutor, who had said this during court proceedings.

6. The complainant then complained to IPSO on 6 August. He said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 for the reason outlined above. He added that the claim was damaging to his reputation and created a misleading and sensationalised impression of what had happened. He also said this had not been heard in court and had been fabricated for the article.

7. The complainant also provided body-worn police video footage, which he said showed that he had not undressed. This showed him sitting down and talking to police officers, while fully dressed.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. To support its position on this point, it provided the court reporter’s contemporaneous notes. The notes said: “Police were called and Myatt began to take off his clothes. He was in the nursery for more than 15 minutes. Police arrested him and detained him under the Mental Health Act. Myatt was aggressive with police".

9. The publication said this was not the first time it was heard in court the complainant had attempted to take his clothes off in the nursery during the incident, it said it had also reported this in July 2024. The earlier article, which it provided, said: “A man accused of forcing his way into an Isle of Wight pre-school, attempting to strip off his clothes and causing staff to put the facility into security lockdown, will see his case go to trial.”

10. The publication said there was some confusion over whether the complainant was taking his clothes off when police arrived, or before they arrived. It said the reporter who attended court had said the solicitor in court appeared a bit “muddled” on this point. This meant that the notes did not include a specific reference to the complainant taking off his clothes when the police arrived. In any event, it said the reference was not a significant inaccuracy – it said it did not make any material difference to the court case, or to the public, whether he was taking his clothes off when police arrived or before they arrived.

11. The publication added that the complainant was an unreliable witness as he had originally denied all the charges and was subsequently found guilty at trial.

12. The publication said the video footage was irrelevant, as it showed the complainant sitting in a room away from the main nursery talking to police, and did not show the period of time during which the complainant had undressed – namely, either when he was in the act of committing the offences described in the article, or as the police arrived. It said the police could have arrived a long time before the video footage was recorded. It added that it could only report what was heard in court, and the footage did not prove anything apart from the fact that at the point of the complainant being filmed he was fully dressed.

13. While the publication did not accept a breach of the Code, on 14 August, it offered to amend the reference under complaint to: “Myatt became agitated and started taking his clothes off inside the nursery, magistrates heard. Police arrived and he was detained after being inside for around 15 minutes."

14. The complainant said when the police officer arrested him, there was no discussion of undressing in the nursery. He also said the offences for which he had been convicted related to him allegedly knocking on a window, it was not related to the alleged undressing. He said the publication had admitted its notes had not recorded when the alleged undressing had occurred, while the article had claimed this happened as the police arrived. He said, if the evidence was unclear, the paper was not entitled to report it as fact.

15. He said the difference between “he began to undress at some point” in the notes and “police arrived to find him undressing” in the article was not trivial. He said the latter reference portrayed a more dramatic and damaging scene. He also said the article made no reference to the solicitor’s evidence being “muddled” or unclear, nor did it present any alternative account and therefore the article lacked balance. He said this had misled the public.

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.

Findings of the Committee

16. The article reported that the prosecutor had – during court proceedings - said that the police had “arrived to find Myatt agitated and taking his clothes off inside the nursery.” The Committee noted that the publication had provided contemporaneous notes from court, however they did not make clear at which point the complainant had started removing his clothes. At any rate, however, the Committee was content that the publication had taken care over the accuracy of what was heard in court on this point: they had provided contemporaneous court notes which showed that a reference to the complainant undressing during the incident had been heard in court. The publication had clearly demonstrated it had taken care over the accuracy of the article by producing contemporaneous court notes. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

17. The next question for the Committee was whether the reference under complaint was significantly inaccurate and required correction.

18. The publication had provided IPSO with contemporaneous court notes, which referenced the complainant undressing. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the article accurately reported it had been heard in court that the complainant had undressed at some point during the incident.

19. For this reason, the Committee did not consider the reference represented a significant inaccuracy, and therefore there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

20. While the Committee did not consider the Code had been breached, it welcomed the steps the publication had taken to try to resolve the complainant’s concerns – namely, offering to amend the article.

21. The Committee also considered the complainant’s concern that the article was not balanced. Under the Editors’ Code, articles do not need to be balanced, as long as publications take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

22. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 06/08/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/11/2025