A driver cleared over the death of a pensioner in a “road rage” incident has lost his harassment claim against a weekly newspaper.

Odysseas Vafiadis, left, said he had felt harassed and intimidated by a photographer who had taken the images of him as he had driven away from court, and that an agency journalist had failed to identify himself when approaching him for comment after the case.

The reporter’s copy appeared in the Bucks Free Press, and Mr Vafiadis complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the newspaper’s coverage of his case.

However, the press watchdog cleared the Free Press of any wrongdoing over the matter.

Mr Vafiadis complained the Free Press breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, adding that a journalist had also approached his wife at their home for comment, but she had closed the door on them.

The Free Press reported that the complainant had commented after the verdict that “I didn’t mean to kill him”. He denied saying this, but accepted that he had told the journalist “I didn’t want him to die” – a quote which also appeared in the same piece.

Mr Vafiadis also disputed the accuracy of a witness’s testimony during the trial, and expressed concern that details of his home address were reported.

Denying a breach of Code, the Free Press initially said that it could provide a copy of an audio note, sourced from the reporter’s agency, which recorded the complainant saying “I didn’t mean to kill him”.

It later clarified that the recording had been wiped clean, but provided a letter from the agency which said that the complainant had told the reporter that he didn’t mean to kill the deceased.

The newspaper accepted that one article inaccurately reported that the complainant had been arrested on the day of the incident and offered to amend the online article on this point, as well as publish a clarification and apology.

The newspaper said that when the agency reporter had approached the complainant for comment, he had been enthusiastic to talk and that, given that the agency reporter had not been commissioned by the newspaper to cover the trial, they would not have been able to identify which publication they represented.

The image of the complainant driving away from court had been obtained by a photographer standing on a public right of way.

The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.