A weekly newspaper and its sister website have been rapped by the press watchdog for inaccurately reporting a man had been “charged” with an offence.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has upheld a complaint against the Folkestone Herald regarding a story which also appeared on Kent Live.

The story in question reported former building director Michael Stainer, pictured, had been “accused of knowingly sending ‘false information’ about one of the building’s residents”, and reported he had “denied his charge”.

But it prompted a complaint to IPSO from Mr Stainer, who argued the headline suggested that a public body such as the police or Crown Prosecution Service had accused him, when actually it was the alleged victim who had privately brought the case.

IPSO sided with him, finding use of the term “charged”, without making it clear that it was a private prosecution, was misleading in circumstances where the prosecution had not been brought by the state.

Complaining under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Mr Stainer said it was inaccurate to say that he had been “charged” when it was a summons, and added that the Crown Prosecution Service had been asked to review the case by magistrates.

The CPS had discontinued the case against him due to lack of evidence, and the person who had brought the case had been ordered to pay the costs.

Denying a breach of Code, the Herald said that there was no substantial difference between a public and a private prosecution, and even if a charge was dropped it would result in a “not guilty” verdict.

It also said that a person could still be described as “charged” when a prosecution was brought privately, and provided IPSO with the complainant’s charge sheet as evidence of this.

As a gesture of goodwill, the Herald offered to publish a clarification at the top of the online article.

IPSO found the story had been misleading because it failed to make clear that this was a private prosecution as opposed to a prosecution which had been brought in the name of the state following an evaluation of the evidence by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The use of the term “charged” in the report, without making it clear that it was a private prosecution, was also misleading in circumstances where the prosecution had not been brought by the state.

IPSO considered that the offer to publish the corrective update at the top of the online article represented a suitably prominent position, and was satisfied that a correction published in the print article put the latest position on record and no further update was required.

The complaint was upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.