The Daily Record breached the Editors’ Code of Practice by paying a criminal for an interview, the Press Complaints Commission has found.

But the newspaper has not been censured as the Commission said there were a number of mitigating factors in what was a “rare and complicated” case.

A Midlothian man complained that the Daily Record had paid someone for an interview who was both a witness in a criminal trial and a criminal – in breach of Clause 16 (Payment for articles) of the Code.

He also complained that articles based on the interview with the man, published on the January 31, and February 1 and 2, were intrusive in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code.

The complaints regarding witness payment and privacy were both rejected, as the Commission found that payment only took place after the trial and so the interview could not have affected its outcome, and because the interview did not contain any information that wasn’t already in the public domain.

But the complaint regarding payments to criminals was upheld as the Commission found no new information arose from the interview which was in the public interest. The code only allows the press to enter into contracts with criminals if the material published is in the public interest. This was not the case in this instance.

The paper paid a man who had earlier been found guilty attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to the same case.

He was approached after his acquittal as a defendant in the trial because the Daily Record, then under a different editor, felt an interview might solve “many unanswered questions surrounding the case”.

The Commission also agreed that the trial had not unearthed all the facts so it was reasonable to believe that further information could be obtained from the interview.

The editor had also tried to get the interview for free, and when it became clear payment was necessary the paper had called on the Commission for advice before going ahead. The Commission declined because such advice on editorial decisions was not within its remit.