The Macclesfield Express has apologised to the victim of a sexual assault after naming her in the paper, in breach of reporting guidelines.

The mistake occurred after an inexperienced reporter put together an article containing an error which then went unnoticed during sub-editing.

As a result, the victim’s friends, family and colleagues knew both that she had been sexually assaulted, and the intimate details of that assault.

The terms of Clause 11 are clear in that newspapers must not publish material likely to contribute to the identification of victims of sexual assault.

The press watchdog labelled the lapse as serious, one which had “thoughtlessly caused distress and embarrassment” to the female victim.

She complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the article had published her name, place of work and nature of her employment as well as the sexually explicit details of the assault. It reported that a member of office staff at the complainant’s place of work had been convicted of sexual touching, and named the complainant as his victim.

The editor, David Lafferty, accepted that a serious breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice had occurred, apologised to the complainant and outlined to the Commission the steps taken to ensure that the problem would not be repeated.

The Express has a 17,229 circulation in and around the market town of Macclesfield, with a 54,549 readership.

The adjudication said: “Naming the complainant in the article amounted to a considerable lapse in the editorial process, one which had thoughtlessly caused distress and embarrassment to the complainant.

“The Commission welcomed the editor’s actions in apologising immediately and taking steps to ensure the problem would not be repeated.

“However, this was such a serious breach of the Code that, in the Commission’s view, it would be difficult for any remedial action to be a proportionate response to the original transgression.”

The Commission upheld the complaint under Clause 11 of the Code, (Victims of sexual assault).

The PCC was told how the editor had offered his sincere apologies to the complainant both through the Commission and in a private letter of apology, and outlined the steps that would be taken to ensure that there would be no repeat of the lapse. The victim told the PCC she was grateful for the steps that were being taken, but wanted the matter also to proceed to adjudication.

David had explained that, while it was no excuse, an inexperienced reporter had prepared the article when senior members of the team were on holiday. Regrettably, the mistake was not then picked up in the sub-editing process.