The partner of a stabbing victim has lost her complaint to the press watchdog over a regional daily’s report on the incident.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has backed the Worcester News over its coverage of the stabbing.

The victim’s sister and daughter claimed they had only found out about the incident after seeing the article on social media.

But IPSO ruled it was clear from social media that the man’s family were aware of his involvement at the time of publication.

The scene of the stabbing in Worcester

Complaining on behalf of the victim and his family under Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Tyla Morse said the article was published just four hours after the incident occurred and the family had not been fully notified.

She said that the police had not posted an official statement and that she had found out because her partner had called her and his mother in order to tell them.

Ms Morse added several members of her partner’s family had been contacted on social media after the incident to give a comment, which she believed was insensitive.

She provided one of the messages in which the reporter identified himself, and asked if the family member would “be happy to speak to me about how Paul is currently doing?” and that they “appreciate it may be difficult to see something about a family member in the press but I’m only looking for the facts”.

Denying a breach of Code, the News said it had taken care to use the terms “reportedly” and “named locally” in the article.

It had also been contacted by sources naming the victim, and there were many posts on social media that named the victim, including a comment from his aunt which said “my nephew is involved in this”.

The News accepted it had contacted members of the complainant’s family in order to gain comment, but it not accept these approaches were insensitive.

IPSO found that as the information involving the attack had been reported on social media, and it was clear from social media that family were aware of his involvement, the publication of the article was not insensitive.

It further found there was nothing in the reporter’s approach that was insensitive, and that he had respected one family member’s request to desist from contacting them.

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