A weekly newspaper which wrongly gave the impression that a naked drink driver had been convicted of indecency for masturbating in his car has been rapped by the press watchdog.

The Thanet Extra reported that Martin Clark had been convicted of outraging public decency and drink driving after he was seen driving his car erratically on a busy High Street while naked.

The story went on to quote from the victim impact statement of a witness, read out in court, who said that she and her daughter had also seen the complainant masturbating in his vehicle – an allegation he denied.

However at the time the statement was read out, the court’s legal adviser had told the court, including the reporter present, to disregard the witness’s masturbation claim, as it had been previously withdrawn by the prosecution.

Mr Clark complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Thanet Extra breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in its coverage of the case.

He said he had agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of outraging public decency for being seen naked in his car if the exposure charge in relation to the masturbation was withdrawn.

This offer which was accepted by the prosecution in order to avoid a separate so-called ‘Newton’ hearing to establish the facts of the case prior to sentencing.

IPSO found that although the newspaper was entitled to report what had been said in open court, the story had created a misleading impression that Mr Clark had been convicted for masturbating rather than for being naked.

Mr Clark said that at his sentencing, the prosecutor had started to read out the witness statement, but the legal adviser told the court that the details they had heard in relation to the allegation of masturbation should be disregarded.

The prosecutor then said it had been decided, in order to save time and money, not to hold a Newton hearing to determine whether the complainant had been masturbating.

The Extra said that there was no order made directing its reporter not to report details of the victim impact statement.

The newspaper claimed that as a Newton hearing is a rarely used court process, its reporter did not fully understand its implication, but was advised by the court’s legal advisor to ensure that the complainant’s denial about masturbating was included in the article, which it was.

The reporter’s notes provided to IPSO showed that the reporter had been told that the complainant had pleaded guilty to outraging public decency because he was naked in his car, and had denied masturbating in public. The legal advisor also advised that the complainant was being sentenced on that basis.

After the complainant called the newsdesk five days after the sentencing, the paper agreed as a gesture of goodwill to publish a clarification on page six which,, it believed constituted due prominence in accordance with Clause 1(ii) of the Code.

In its adjudication, IPSO found the newspaper was entitled to report what had been said in open court even though a portion of the victim impact statement had been read in error.

The reporter’s notes, however, showed that the court’s legal advisor had explained that the complainant had pleaded guilty to outraging public decency on the basis that he was naked in public, not because he had been masturbating.

This information was not reported in the article, which created the misleading impression that the complainant had been prosecuted and convicted in relation to the allegation of masturbation.

The watchdog said this was significantly misleading because it was a more serious offence than those to which he pleaded guilty, and the reporting of it ignored the prosecution’s acceptance that this allegation should not form part of the case against him.

The complaint was upheld on this basis, and the Extra was ordered to re-publish the correction on page three, where the initial story had appeared, or further forward in the newspaper.

The full adjudication can be read here.