The Lancashire Telegraph slipped up when it published a story about the proposed closure of a mortuary – when the article implicated one of the staff as its source.

While the newspaper did not name him, it referred to him as “a worker at Burnley’s mortuary”.

Unfortunately, there were only two workers at the mortuary – the other being the complainant’s boss.

And the worker was subsequently dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct for speaking to the newspaper.

He had spoken on condition that he was not identified, so contacted the Press Complaints Commission, which upheld his complaint.

The newspaper told the Commission that it did not consider the complainant to be a confidential source because he had not revealed confidential information. A number of health workers in the area had been informed of the proposed mortuary closure.

The Telegraph also claimed it had not been told that indirect identification was also to be avoided.

In addition, the reporter had not known, and had no reason to know, that the man was one of only two employees, and the editor had offered to send the complainant a private letter of regret.

The article, headlined “Burnley bodies may be sent to Blackburn”, was published on March 9, and was found to be in breach of Clause 14 of the Editors’ Code of Practice (Confidential Sources).

The Commission concluded that the worker’s identification appeared to have been unintentional.

But its adjudication said: “Given that the need for confidentiality had been established between the parties, the onus was on the newspaper to establish whether the form of words it proposed to use would have effectively identified the complainant in any case.

“The unfortunate result of not doing so was the complainant’s exposure as a source of information.”