A newspaper that reported court mitigation as if it was an established fact has been rapped by the Press Complaints Commission.

The press watchdog upheld a complaint against the Isle of Wight County Press after an article effectively stated as fact that a woman and her friend were lesbian lovers, in both the headline and opening paragraph.

Leila Mahmoud, of Ryde, complained that an article published in January headlined “Man attacked girlfriend’s lesbian lover” was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

She and her friend made clear that the claim was completely unfounded.

The complainant explained that she had been the subject of an assault by her friend’s boyfriend, who admitted the offence at his trial.

In mitigation, the man had said he was upset because he had discovered his girlfriend and her friend – the complainant – were having an affair, something which the newspaper had included as if it were established fact.

The newspaper said it had accurately reported what was said in court.

A subsequent report on the man’s sentencing made reference to the girlfriend”s unhappiness at her boyfriend’s “disgusting and embarrassing allegations, which caused her family to question her sexuality”.

The newspaper refused to publish a letter from the complainant setting out her denial of the affair on the basis that it lacked legal privilege and could leave the newspaper open to defamation proceedings.

The complainant provided a copy of her signed witness statement but said she could not be certain it was read out in court. In the statement she made clear that she denied having a sexual relationship with her friend.

The Commission, in upholding the complaint, noted that requirements on accuracy in this area related to how proceedings were reported, not to the actual comments made during legal hearings.

Clause 1 (Accuracy) states that newspapers “must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”. In the headline and the first paragraph of the article, the newspaper had stated as fact that the complainant and the man’s ex-girlfriend had been lovers, when the correct position was that this was an allegation presented to the court in mitigation – and that readers may have been misled into believing that the claim had been accepted as established fact.