A report which saw a Scottish daily hauled before the press regulator contained “serious inaccuracies”, the newspaper has admitted.

The Edinburgh Evening News has been rapped by the Independent Press Standards Organisation after the ex-partner of a former soldier who had apparently committed suicide complained that the paper had breached the Editors’ Code of Practice.

Kathryn Archbold said the EEN had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Code in an article which reported David Glover had been found dead the week he was due to appear in court accused of assaulting her.

The complainant said that her former partner, who was the father of her son, had not been due to appear in court charged with her assault the week he died, as reported in the article and its headline.

Mr Glover had in fact been charged with assault in 2011, and the matter had been dealt with then.

His apparent suicide was unrelated to those charges and. at the time of his death Mr Glover had access to their son and a civilised relationship with Ms Archbold.

She expressed particular concern that the newspaper had failed to report the facts accurately at a time when her son was dealing with the tragic news of his father’s death, deeming an apology insufficient for the damage the article had caused.

The EEN accepted that its report contained serious inaccuracies, and it immediately removed the article from its website.

It apologised unreservedly for any upset the article had caused, offered to publish a correction and to meet with the complainant to discuss the matter further.

The paper explained that the report had been submitted by an experienced freelance court reporter, who had covered the court case involving Mr Glover and the complainant the previous year.

Mr Glover had been charged with two counts of assault, which had taken place in February 2011 and March 2013, and a third charge of breaching bail conditions in June 2013.

Earlier in 2015, the reporter learned that Mr Glover was due to appear in court charged with supplying cocaine and possession of cannabis, and he made a note of the trial date in his diary.

When Mr Glover died, the reporter decided to report on the upcoming court case and he retrieved the notes relating to the charges, including those from the previous year.

He noted the charges down on separate pieces of paper, but mixed the pages up, giving the impression that the more recent charges related to the assaults. He said he was deeply sorry for the upset his mistake had caused the complainant and her family.

With regards to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 5, the EEN said Mr Glover’s death had already been widely reported, and it had taken care not to include details relating to the apparent suicide.

It considered that there was a clear public interest in reporting that an individual facing court proceedings appeared to have taken their own life. It contended that had the court proceedings been correctly identified, its report would not have breached the Code.

IPSO found the EEN had breached Clause 1, but said the paper had reacted appropriately to the complaint when first alerted to the matter.

It had recognised the inaccuracy, accepted responsibility for it, removed the online article, and offered to publish a correction that clearly addressed the inaccuracy, and included an unreserved apology.

The Committee found that while the complainant did not wan a further article published on the matter, other individuals might have a legitimate interest in the correction of this significant inaccuracy, such as family members and friends of the deceased.

A correction using the wording suggest by the EEN was therefore required to set the public record straight.

The complaint was upheld under Clause 1, and the full adjudication can be read here.