05702-25 Read v Newbury Weekly News

Summary of Complaint

1. Daniel Read complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Newbury Weekly News breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Thatcham man Daniel Read denies sending obscene or menacing message”, published on 15 May 2025, and an article headlined “Obscene message charge is dropped" published on 11 September 2025.

2. Both articles reported on the complainant’s criminal case. The first article, against the online version only, stated: “The 30-year-old, of Fyfield Road, Thatcham, is accused of sending an electronic message that was grossly offensive, indecent, menacing or obscene in Thatcham on September 1, 2023.” It went on to report that the complainant was “released on bail with conditions.”

3. The second article, which appeared on page 21 of the newspaper, reported: “the 30-year-old, of Fyfield Road, Thatcham, denied sending an electronic message that was grossly offensive, indecent, menacing or obscene in Thatcham on September 1, 2023.” It said that prosecutors had dropped the charge and “he was formally acquitted”.

4. The second article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline “Thatcham man Daniel Read cleared of sending obscene or menacing message”.

5. The complainant said that the first article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported he was released on bail with conditions when there were no conditions to his bail. He also said both articles were inaccurate to report he was 30 years old, as he was 29 at the time of publication. The complainant further said the article was inaccurate to report the incident happened in Thatcham on 1 September as he was not in Thatcham on that day but Portsmouth. He did, however, acknowledge that the charge against him referred to Thatcham.

6. The complainant also said both articles breached Clause 2 because they published his street level address. He said the publication of his address had put him and his family in danger, and was not in the public interest.

7. The publication accepted that the first article was inaccurate to report the complainant was released on bail with conditions. It acknowledged the complainant was released on unconditional bail and apologised for the error. The publication said it did not send a reporter to court, but instead relied on information supplied by His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). It provided the listing to IPSO, which stated the complainant’s bail was unconditional: “Remand unconditional bail”. The publication, however, did not consider the inaccuracy to be significant in the context of the article. It took the view that the error had no bearing on the complainant’s character, guilt or innocence, as bail conditions were routinely applied and had no bearing on the outcome of the case. Despite this, the publication amended the last line of the first article to delete the reference to conditions on 24 November 2025.

8. The publication also accepted the complainant’s age was inaccurately reported in the first article. It said, however, that the second article was accurate: the complainant was 30 when it was published. The publication again said the information had been provided by HMCTS, and it did not consider his age amounted to a significant inaccuracy as it would not materially distort the reader’s understanding of the issue, that the complainant had been accused of a crime. Notwithstanding this, the publication amended “The 30-year-old” in the first article to read “The 29-year-old” on 24 November 2025.

9. Although it did not consider the inaccuracies to be significant, the publication offered to update the first article and publish a footnote or standalone correction on 3 November 2025 - 3 days after it first became aware of the alleged inaccuracy. It provided the exact wording proposed during IPSO’s investigation:

Footnote correction:

“Correction: In our original story published on May 15, 2025, there were two factual inaccuracies. We stated that Mr Read was aged 30 when, in fact, he was 29, and we reported that he was released on conditional bail when, in fact, he was released on bail without conditions. We amended both of these errors after we were made aware of them and we are happy to formally correct the record.”

Standalone correction:

"[Headline] Daniel Read: A correction

[Subhead] A correction to a court report published on May 15, 2025, concerning Daniel Read.

On May 15, 2025, we published an article that stated that Daniel Read of Fyfield Road, Thatcham, appeared in the dock at Reading Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, April 23, accused of sending an electronic message that was grossly offensive, indecent, menacing or obscene in Thatcham on September 1, 2023.

Mr Read spoke only to confirm his details and to plead not guilty to the single charge.

Prosecutors subsequently dropped the charge and Mr Read was formally acquitted of the offence at the same court on Tuesday, August 19. We reported the outcome of the case on September 12, 2025.

In our original story published on May 15, 2025, there were two factual inaccuracies. We stated that Mr Read was aged 30 when, in fact, he was 29, and we reported that he was released on conditional bail when, in fact, he was released on bail without conditions.

We amended both of these errors after we were made aware of them and we are happy to formally correct the record."

10. The publication did not accept the articles inaccurately reported the location of the alleged offence. It said this information was provided to it by HMCTS and accurately reported in good faith.

11. The publication did not accept the articles breached Clause 2. It said the articles were court reports based on the information supplied by HMCTS; they did not report the complainant’s full address and only disclosed his street-level address; and there was no expectation of privacy when an adult defendant appeared in open court without any reporting restrictions.

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.

Findings of the Committee

12. The Committee first considered the complainant’s bail conditions reported in the first article. The publication acknowledged the article was inaccurate, and said it relied on the information from HMCTS. However, the Committee noted that the publication had not accurately reported the information recorded by HMCTS which had stated that the complainant’s bail was unconditional. Where the article inaccurately reported the available information in relation to the complainant’s bail conditions, the Committee considered the publication failed to take care not to publish inaccurate information. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

13. The Committee then considered whether the inaccurate information was significant and therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). While the Committee noted the publication said the error had no bearing on the complainant’s character, guilt or innocence, the article was a court report. The Committee was clear that newspapers act as important and visible records of criminal cases, serving the principle of open justice by accurately reporting the substance of these cases, and therefore such cases should be reported accurately. Taking this into account, the Committee considered the inaccuracy to be significant and required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

14. The Committee turned next to the amendment and correction offered by the publication. It considered the offered correction identified the inaccurate information and set out the correct position. The Committee also considered the proposed placement of the corrections – including a standalone correction of greater prominence - satisfied the requirement of prominence under Clause 1 (ii) where the inaccuracy appeared at the final line of the article. Further, where the corrections were offered 3 days after it first became aware of the alleged inaccuracy, albeit the precise wording specified at a later date, the Committee also considered it satisfied the requirement of promptness under Clause 1 (ii). There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

15. With regard to the complainant’s listed age in both articles, the Committee considered that the age of the complainant, and particularly the difference between the age of 29 and 30 in the first article was insignificant in the context of the article. His age, as an adult, did not affect the article, which detailed the charge against him. However, the Committee welcomed the correction offered on this point. With regards to the second article, it was not in dispute that the complainant’s age was correct at the time of publication. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

16. The Committee next considered the alleged inaccuracy in relation to the location of the alleged incident. While it noted the complainant said he was not in Thatcham on the day in question, he acknowledged his charge was accurately reflected in both articles. Newspapers are responsible for accurately reporting what is heard in court; they are not responsible for the accuracy of what is heard by the court. In such circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

17. Lastly, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns about his privacy. Newspapers are entitled to report information heard in court – which, it appeared, the complainant’s street-level address had been. Absent of reporting restrictions; this information was therefore already in the public domain prior to the publication of the article, and its publication did not represent an intrusion into the complainant’s private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

18. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

19. The offered corrections put the correct position on record and were offered promptly and with due prominence. They can now be published.

Date complaint received: 27/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/03/2026