A man convicted of child porn offences has been told that the Daily Post was within its rights to name his wife.

John Clare complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article headlined "Officer honoured for bravery faces child porn charges" published in the Daily Post on April 2 this year was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.

He also complained on behalf of, and with the signed authorisation of, his wife that a second article headlined "PC guilty of child porn offences" published in the Daily Post on April 4 identified her in breach of Clause 10 (Reporting of Crime) of the Code and was also inaccurate.

Both complaints were rejected by the PCC.

The articles reported the trial and conviction of the complainant on charges of possessing and making indecent images of girls under the age of 16 on his computer.

But the complainant said the first article was inaccurate and the second identified his wife, who was an innocent relative.

The Daily Post acknowledged the error in the first article, apologised and offered to publish a correction - but the complainant did not consider this to be a sufficient remedy.

However the paper defended its decision to identify the complainant's wife on the grounds that she had supported her husband from the public gallery throughout the trial, had shouted 'no' at the reading of the verdict and had consoled her husband following his conviction.

It also emphasised that Mrs Clare had not been the focus of the article.

But the complainant disputed claims that it was his wife that shouted 'no', and said they had made strenuous efforts to avoid being connected during the trial.

The PCC noted that in previous decisions under Clause 10 (i) it had taken into account the relative or friend's relationship with the criminal, their involvement in court proceedings and their own public standing as well as the prominence of their appearance in the article.

It said that in this instance, although the couple had attempted to avoid being seen together and it greatly sympathised with their efforts, the presence of the complainant's wife in court made it inevitable that she and her husband would be identified as such.

It therefore concluded that there was no breach of Clause 10 of the Code.

It also noted that the newspaper had apologised for its errors and offered to correct them and this was a satisfactory response.

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index