A North Wales reporter “should have taken greater care” after he conducted a brief interview with a 15-year-old girl about a serious road accident.

The Daily Post had sent the journalist out to find out more information about the accident which had left a teenaged boy critically ill in hospital.

While knocking on houses, the reporter met the schoolgirl who confirmed where the accident had occurred and the name of the injured boy.

At that point, the reporter noticed the girl was wearing her school uniform and realised that she may have been under-16.

As her parents were not home at the time, the reporter left immediately as he realised he should not have been speaking to her without parental consent.

However, the girl’s father lodged a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission about the reporter’s visit, saying she had been left upset by being questioned about the accident.

The complaint, under Clause 6 (Children) of the Code of Conduct, was upheld by the Commission.

Clause 6 states that “a child under-16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents”.

The PCC said there were two initial tests in this instance: Did the exchange between the reporter and the girl constitute an interview and did it involve her welfare?

The Commission said it was clear the reporter was seeking substantive information and it felt the exchange could therefore be classed as an interview, albeit a brief one, meaning the Code had been engaged.

The subject matter involved her welfare in that news of her friend’s injuries had left her distressed.

The PCC considered the terms of Clause 6 of the Code would cover an interview with a distressed 15-year-old in these circumstances.

It added: “This breach of the Code was slight. While the reporter should arguably have been able to deduce immediately, from her school shirt, the girl may have known the victim and was under-16, he did withdraw after a brief exchange when this occurred to him.

“It is clear that, with the benefit of hindsight, he should have taken greater care not to engage the girl in a conversation about the accident.

“But nothing from the interview was published – so there was no public impact on the complainant’s daughter – and the Commission was satisfied that the breach of the Code was not serious.”