Resolution Statement – 04835-25 A woman v thesun.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. A woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article published on 4 September 2025.

2. The article opened by reporting: “A CONVICTED stalker who terrorised [a woman] for five months has been jailed”. It said the perpetrator “’refused’ to leave their shared home after they broke up”. It quoted the prosecutor who said the perpetrator: “did not accept that the relationship had ended. Immediately after the breakup he refused to leave the property he shared with [the woman]. That is when the stalking began. [He] would call and message on a regular basis, and also contacted her mother asking her if the relationship was really over. [He] even phoned up her workplace on multiple occasions.”

3. The article also said the defendant “threatened [the complainant’s] mother’s partner, saying: ‘If you come to London you will see what I can do.’”

4. Subsequently, the article reported that “in her impact statement, [the woman] said her mum ‘watche[d] out of the window’ when she gets home to make sure she’s safe”. It reported that she said:

“I feel completely traumatised by him. His contact has been non-stop since I broke up with him. I used to live a peaceful life but now my life is no longer peaceful. I have had to stop posting on social media. […] The only reason why he hasn’t contacted me at home is because of my concierge. My mum has had to watch me out the window when I get home to make sure no one is following me.”

5. A photograph caption also read: “The [perpetrator], ‘refused’ to leave their home”.

6. The complainant said the article breached Clause 1 because statements which the article reported were heard in court and attributed to her had not, in fact, been heard in court. She said she had not made a victim impact statement. The complainant confirmed she had not attended court, however outlined several inaccuracies.

7. She said it was inaccurate to report her ex-partner refused to leave their shared home after they broke up. She said they had never lived together and never shared a home together.

8. She said the article was inaccurate to report her ex-partner’s text: “If you come to London you will see what I can do”. The complainant said they did exchange messages; however those exact words were inaccurate.

9. She said the article was inaccurate to report: “In her impact statement [the woman] said her mum ‘watched out of the window’ when she gets home to make sure she’s safe”. The complainant said her mother had never made a statement to be read out in court.

10. She said it was inaccurate to report in her impact statement: “I feel completely traumatised by him. His contact has been non-stop since I broke up with him” and “The only reason why he hasn’t contacted me at home is because of my concierge. My mum has had to watch me out the window when I get home to make sure no one is following me.” She said she did not say this in a victim impact statement, and it was not heard at court.

11. She also said it was inaccurate to report her victim impact statement said “I used to live a peaceful life but now my life is no longer peaceful”. She reiterated that she had not said this in a public statement.

12. She said the publication had breached Clause 2 as she was easily identifiable and this could impact her safety.

13. She further said the newspaper had breached Clause 3 as a journalist working on behalf of the newspaper had repeatedly called her at work for comment. She said she declined to comment, but they called her twice. She also said a journalist working on behalf of the publication had viewed her LinkedIn – she provided a screenshot which showed a “reporter at the Sun” had viewed her profile.

14. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said it had sourced the material from a reputable agency which had a reporter in court – indeed, it noted that the complainant had not been present in court. The newspaper said the references under complaint were heard in court and the complainant’s victim impact statement was read out by the prosecutor. It provided the reporter’s shorthand notes – and a translation - which made reference to the disputed claims.

15. The publication said no reporting restrictions were made in relation to the complainant’s identity and it was entitled to report the proceedings under the principle of open justice. It said the article was in the public interest.

16. In regard to the complaint under Clause 3, it said the reporter had called the complainant’s workplace to get a comment - one of her colleagues answered the phone on the second attempt, and nothing was said about the complainant not wanting to comment. It said the reporter left their contact details and didn’t phone again.

17. It also disputed that the reporter had looked her up on LinkedIn.

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.

Mediated Outcome

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

19. During IPSO’s investigation – while disputing any breach of the Code - the publication offered to remove the article to resolve the complainant’s concerns.

20. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction and, on 16 March, the publication removed the article.

21. 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: 15/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/03/2026