A woman who claimed a journalist told her the government instructed him to write a story about her fiancé’s death has had her complaint rejected by the press regulator.

Tracey Hodder complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Dorset Echo had breached Clause 3 (Privacy) Clause 4 (Harassment) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into Grief or Shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined ‘Stag Party Tragedy’, published on 2 September 2014.

The complainant said she had made clear to the journalist she did not want a story about her fiancé Paul Bush, who died on a stag weekend in Budapest, to appear in the paper.

She claimed the journalist told her he had no choice but to write the article, and that the Home Office had instructed him to do so and provided him with her address.

The complainant was offered copy approval of the story by the Echo, and several corrections were later made following a conversation between the paper and her friend.

The Echo said it had received confirmation from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about Mr Bush’s death, and the journalist had mistakenly referred to the Home Office when asked by the complainant who had confirmed the news to the paper.

It added the journalist had told her the decision to publish the story would not be his decision, but that it probably would be due to it being in the public domain.

The Echo added the journalist was certain he had not told her he was instructed to write the story by the Home Office.

IPSO found it was a matter of “significant regret” that the journalist had misled the complainant over the government agency which had provided the information and recognised there may have been a misunderstanding between the two parties.

It found no breach of code and the complaint was not upheld. The full adjudication can be read here.

Other recent IPSO cases involving regional newspapers include:

Kumar v Telegraph & Argus, Bradford

Amitabh Kumar complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Telegraph and Argus had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 4 (Harassment) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code in an article headlined ‘Doctor admits sexual assault’, published 16 August 2014.

The article concerned the complainant’s conviction for sexually assaulting a girl on a bus.

The complainant said the newspaper’s reference to him as a doctor was irrelevant to the case and that he had been harassed by a photographer after coming out of court.

The Telegraph & Argus said the complainant had been described as a doctor in court, and did not accept he had been harassed.

It further added Clause 5 was not intended to cover circumstances in which people had been convicted of a crime.

The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.

Tomlin v Nottingham Post and Tomlin v Eastwood & Kimberley Advertiser

Simon Tomlin made separate complaints over court stories carried in both the Post and the Advertiser about his trial in absentia on charges of sending malicious communications and harassment.

He disputed the accuracy of both papers’ reports of court proceedings, adding the Post had incorrectly described him as being 45, rather than 46.

The Post acknowledged it had reported his age incorrectly, but both papers denied a breach of code in the respective complaints.

IPSO found the complainant’s lack of attendance in court meant he was not in a position to dispute the accuracy of the stories, which had been corroborated by the reporter’s shorthand notes from court in both instances.

Neither complaint was upheld.

The adjudication in the Post case can be read here, and the Advertiser case here.