03574-25 Parsons v watfordobserver.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Alan Parsons complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that watfordobserver.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Watford man in court over 'dozens of indecent images of kids'” published on 30 April 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on criminal proceedings against the complainant. It said a “crown court appearance has been set for” the complainant, who the article said had been “accused of making dozens of indecent images of children”.

3. The article then reported that, “[a]mong conditions for his bail are not having contact with anyone under the age of 18”.The article also included the complainant’s street-level address.

4. The complainant contacted the newspaper on 2 September 2025 to express his concerns regarding the article. He said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it referred to “children”, when his offence related to one teenager. He also said he had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity for taking photographs of an individual he believed was nineteen. He said he met her in a nightclub where under-eighteens were not permitted, and did not know at the time he took the pictures that she was in fact seventeen. He said the article did not include this background information.

5. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2, as it included his address. He said the article had also affected his reputation in his local community, which he considered breached Clause 2 and Clause 4.

6. The publication said the reference to “children” had come about due to human error when interpreting the charge sheet. It accepted that this reference was inaccurate and, on 3 September, it amended the article to instead state that he was accused of making dozens of indecent images of a child. It also added a footnote to the article which said:

“This article previously stated Parsons was accused of making indecent images of children. It has been updated to confirm Parsons was actually charged with making indecent images of a child. We apologise for any confusion caused with the original version.”

7. However, the publication said referring to the victim as a “child” was legally correct, as they were under eighteen at the time of the offence. It also noted the victim was referred to as child in the charge, which did not include the age of the victim. It said it would cover the sentencing in a second story, which could include the complainant’s mitigation.

8. Notwithstanding the above, the publication amended the article further on 8 September to include the victim’s age.

9. On 12 September, during IPSO’s investigation, the complainant raised a further inaccuracy – he said that no court documents said he could not be near anyone who was under eighteen years of age. He said that, while he was on bail, he could not go near anyone who was under eighteen, but in court on 12 September he was told this was an error and that he should not have been added to the sex offenders register.

10. The publication said that if the bail conditions as reported in the article were inaccurate – and the complainant could provide evidence of this - it would amend the article. However, on 18 December, the publication provided a screenshot from a digital supplier of court data, which showed the same conditions listed in the article were in place.

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 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.

Findings of the Committee

11. It was not in dispute that the charge against the complainant referenced a single child, rather than multiple children as the article reported. Given the newspaper had access to the accurate charge information prior to publication, this inaccuracy represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. For this reason, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

12. The Committee considered this inaccuracy was significant given the importance of accurate court reporting and the claim that the complainant had been charged with offending multiple children rather than just one - which would be a more serious offence. As such, the inaccuracy required correcting in line with the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

13. The publication had offered a correction one day after the complainant had made it aware of the inaccuracy. The Committee considered this sufficiently prompt.

14. The wording of the footnote correction set out the original inaccuracy, and put the correct position on record: that the charge related to one child. However, the footnote correction was not sufficiently prominent, given the inaccurate claim appeared in the headline – meaning that the original inaccurate information had greater weight and prominence than it otherwise would have had, and may have also appeared on the publication’s homepage. Therefore, there was a further breach of Clause 1 (ii).

15. The Committee also considered the complainant’s concern that the term “child” was misleading as the victim was seventeen. The Committee noted that the charge referred to making indecent images of a child – as such, it was not inaccurate to refer to the victim in this way. The Committee did not consider that omitting the specific age of the victim and the circumstances in which they had met meant that the article was inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

16. The Committee appreciated the complainant’s position that the court had made an error in recording his bail conditions. However, the complainant accepted his original bail conditions said he could not approach children Given this, and where the newspaper was not responsible for the accuracy of what was heard in court – provided it accurately reported what was heard in court - the article was not inaccurate, distorted or misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

17. The Committee next considered whether the inclusion of the complainant’s address breached Clause 2. It was not in dispute that the complainant’s street-level address had been referenced during open court proceedings. Given this, the Committee did not consider that this information was private as it had been made public during court proceedings prior to the article’s publication. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

18. In regard to Clause 4, the Committee noted that the subject of the article was ongoing legal proceedings against the complainant, and did not relate to the complainant’s grief or shock. There was no breach of Clause 4.

Conclusions

19. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

20. Having partly upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

21. It was significantly inaccurate to report the complainant had had been charged over dozens of indecent images of “kids” or “children”, as the charge had related to one child. However, the Committee noted the newspaper had attempted to rectify the error promptly and put the correct position on record – albeit, it had not done so with due prominence. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy.

22. The Committee was content that the wording of the correction which had already been published as a footnote set out the inaccuracy and put the correct position on record. Therefore, a similar wording – making clear that the article inaccurately reported that the charge related to multiple children, rather than a single child – should also be published as a standalone correction. A link to the standalone correction should be published on the publication’s homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way.

23. The wording of the standalone correction should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 03/09/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/02/2026