Resolution Statement – 03357-25 A woman v dailymail.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailymail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock), Clause 6 (Children) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article published on 18 August 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported that a home owned by a convicted rapist and murderer was being sold.

3. It reported that the complainant resided at the property for a number of years with the individual named in the article. The article also included pictures of the inside and outside of the property, as well as details of the property – the pictures’ captions attributed them to Rightmove. The article also included the complainant’s name and photograph.

4. The complainant – the convicted individual’s former partner - said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it framed the property sale in a negative light. She said that the article implied scandal and wrongdoing.

5. She also complained that it breached Clause 2 because it included photographs of the home – and of her – which had been published without her consent. She considered this an intrusion into her private life, and said there was no public interest in the article.

6. Moreover, the complainant complained that the article breached Clause 3, Clause 4 and Clause 6 because it subjected her and her family to harassment and unwanted attention; exploited the distressing history of her family; and caused harm to the family by making the property harder to sell.

7. The complainant also complained that the article breached Clause 9. She stated that she bore no responsibility for her ex-partner’s actions, and yet the article unfairly associated her with his crimes.

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

9. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It stated that it was satisfied the article did not contain any inaccuracies, and commented that all of the imagery of the home had been sourced from a publicly available Rightmove listing, and that there were no private items on display in the images. Regarding the image of the complainant, it added that this had been taken from a public social media account, and only showed the complainant’s likeness.

10. With respect to Clause 9, the publication stated that the complainant had been identified as the ex-partner of the convicted individual in numerous national newspapers. It considered that she was relevant to the story about the former family home of the individual being sold given she was selling it, and given the link between her and her former partner was established in the public domain. It also noted that the home was the home at which the individual had been arrested.

11. The publication commented that Clause 3, Clause 4 and Clause 6 were not engaged by the complainant’s concerns.

12. The complainant, in response, commented that the sole public interest was the property’s historic association with the individual’s arrest, not her private life or the private life of her family.

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 6 (Children)*

i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.

ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the school authorities.

iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless an adult with legal parental responsibility or similarly responsible adult consents.

iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.

v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life.

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.

Mediated Outcome

13. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, on 21 October, the complainant requested that the article be removed to resolve her complaint.

14. On 7 November, the publication agreed to the complainant’s request. It removed the article on the same day.

15. 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: 18/08/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 07/11/2025