A rapist who demanded a newspaper clarify that he bought food for his victim has had his complaint to the press watchdog rejected.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has thrown out a complaint against the Kentish Gazette by Kieran Champion, who is currently serving a six-year prison sentence after being found guilty of rape and sexual assault.

Champion went to IPSO after taking issue with some of the language used in the Gazette’s coverage of his case.

But IPSO dismissed all of his claims and found in favour of the Canterbury-based weekly after an investigation.

Among other aspects of the Gazette’s coverage he contested, Champion claimed it was wrong to say he had “repeatedly attacked” his victim and “plied [the victim] with drinks”.

Complaining under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, he said he wanted the Gazette to publish an amendment to its online story noting had also bought food for his victim.

Champion also claimed it was wrong to report he “preyed on the girl” because she had been over 18, and added a claim he had subjected the victim to “sustained terror” should not have been included because it was the journalist’s opinion.

Denying a breach of Code, the Gazette said the term “repeatedly” was a fair reflection of what had happened because it had been heard in court that Champion had sexually assaulted his victim with his mouth and she had later awoken to find him raping her.

The paper added it was not inaccurate to use the term “plied” in a case where it meant to “supply or furnish something”, and noted the judge’s sentencing remarks stated he had “provided [the victim] with more alcohol and that without doubt made the offences easier to commit”.

It further said the term “girl” could mean a “young, or relatively young woman” and believed “sustained terror” was an appropriate summary of the victim’s experience where she was subjected to repeated sexual assaults.

IPSO found no breach of Code on any of the points raised by Champion.

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