Press Watchdog Orders East Anglian Daily Times To Correct Court Report After Upholding Accuracy Complaint

By Lucy Caulkett-

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has upheld a significant accuracy complaint against the East Anglian Daily Times (EADT), ordering the regional newspaper to publish a correction in both its print and online editions after ruling that it had inaccurately reported evidence in a criminal court case involving former television journalist Victoria Mayo.The ruling represents a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice after IPSO concluded the newspaper failed to take sufficient care when reporting that photographs showing injuries allegedly sustained by Ms Mayo’s partner would be presented to the court. The regulator found there was no evidence that such claims had been made during proceedings and said the report materially exaggerated the seriousness of the allegations against Ms Mayo.

The complaint arose from an article published under the headline “Former ITV journalist denies attacking partner.” The report stated that Ms Mayo had been accused of punching her partner, throwing chips at him and pulling his hair. While the criminal charges against Ms Mayo were subsequently dropped, she complained to IPSO that aspects of the newspaper’s contemporaneous reporting of the hearing were inaccurate and breached the industry’s code governing press standards. Ms Mayo, who formerly worked as a journalist for both ITV and the BBC before establishing her own public relations consultancy, argued that some of the allegations reported by the newspaper had not, in fact, been heard in court. Central to her complaint was the newspaper’s assertion that her partner had suffered injuries and that photographs of those injuries would be produced at a later hearing.

After examining evidence from both parties, IPSO reached a split decision. The regulator accepted the newspaper’s account that evidence relating to hair pulling had been heard during proceedings. The Committee found that the newspaper had produced contemporaneous reporter’s notes recording that it had been alleged in court that Ms Mayo had pulled her partner’s hair. Consequently, it ruled there had been no breach of Clause 1 on that aspect of the report. However, IPSO reached the opposite conclusion regarding the report’s claims about injuries.

Its ruling found that the newspaper had failed to demonstrate that any reference had been made during the hearing to photographs showing injuries or that such images would later be presented in court.Instead, the Committee noted that the police documentation submitted by Ms Mayo suggested the opposite. According to the ruling, police officers attending the incident recorded that they could identify no obvious injuries and that no photographs had been taken. The Committee concluded that the publication’s own reporter’s notes referred only to photographs showing chips in the complainant’s partner’s hair. They contained no reference to visible injuries or to photographs of injuries.

As a result, IPSO determined that the newspaper had failed to take sufficient care before publishing the disputed claim, thereby breaching Clause 1(i) of the Editors’ Code.The Committee stated that the article had “reported, in a significantly inaccurate manner, that images showing injuries of the complainant’s partner would be shown in court,” adding that this “misrepresented the nature and gravity of the offence the complainant had allegedly committed.” Because the inaccuracy was considered significant, IPSO ordered the East Anglian Daily Times to publish a correction with due prominence in both its printed newspaper and online edition.

Not all aspects of Ms Mayo’s complaint succeeded.She alleged that the newspaper had breached Clause 2 (Privacy) by publishing a Facebook photograph without her permission. IPSO rejected that complaint.

She also argued the newspaper had breached Clause 3 (Harassment) by giving the court proceedings undue prominence. The regulator likewise dismissed that allegation, finding no breach of the Editors’ Code on either point. The decision nevertheless represents an important reminder of the obligation on court reporters to distinguish carefully between evidence heard in open court and material that has not been presented.

Court reporting occupies a privileged position within British journalism because of the principle of open justice. Newspapers are afforded wide latitude to report proceedings accurately, but IPSO’s Editors’ Code requires publications to “take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.” Where significant inaccuracies occur, publishers are required to correct them promptly and with due prominence.

The ruling is also notable in a wider regulatory context.

A search of IPSO’s published rulings indicates this is the only published upheld complaint against the East Anglian Daily Times currently listed in IPSO’s online rulings archive, although that should not be interpreted as the newspaper’s complete regulatory history because older matters may have been resolved through mediation or pre-date the searchable archive.

On the same day, IPSO also upheld a separate complaint by Ms Mayo against the Eastern Daily Press—a sister publication owned by the same publishing group—over substantially similar reporting of the same court proceedings. That complaint likewise resulted in a finding of a breach of Clause 1 and an order requiring publication of a correction.

By contrast, IPSO rejected another recent complaint against the Eastern Daily Press alleging inaccuracies in its reporting of a criminal prosecution, finding no breach of the Editors’ Code.

While high-profile upheld complaints often attract public attention, they represent only a small proportion of the complaints received by the regulator.

According to IPSO’s published annual reporting and independent analysis of its complaints process, fewer than one per cent of complaints recorded by IPSO in 2023, 2024 and 2025 resulted in a formal finding that the Editors’ Code had been breached. Most complaints are either not upheld, resolved through mediation, or fall outside IPSO’s remit.

IPSO regulates more than 1,800 newspaper and magazine titles across the United Kingdom and publishes every formal adjudication and Committee ruling on its website, providing transparency over complaints that proceed to full investigation. For regional newspapers, which routinely report magistrates’ and Crown Court proceedings, the Mayo ruling serves as a reminder that accuracy obligations extend beyond broad descriptions of criminal allegations to the precise evidence heard in court. The regulator’s decision underlines that even where the central thrust of a report is accurate, embellishing or overstating evidence can amount to a significant breach if it materially alters readers’ understanding of the allegations being faced.

In Ms Mayo’s case, IPSO concluded that was exactly what had occurred. By reporting that photographs of injuries would be shown to the court when no such evidence had been demonstrated, the newspaper had portrayed the alleged assault as more serious than the evidence before the court justified. That finding was sufficient to warrant regulatory intervention and a compulsory published correction.

The decision reinforces one of the central principles underpinning the Editors’ Code: that public confidence in court reporting depends not only on reporting proceedings freely but also on reporting them faithfully.