A man who filmed himself in a sex act with a dog has had a complaint partially upheld against a regional daily.

Neil Bird, of Acomb, York, pleaded guilty at York Crown Court to two charges of possessing extreme pornography and four of having indecent images of children .

York daily The Press initially reported the case on its website under the headline “Man filmed himself having sex with dog.”

This was however inaccurate as Bird had in fact filmed the animal having sex with another dog while he touched its penis.

The online headline was changed the following day to “Acomb man filmed himself in sex act with a dog”.

However Bird complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation claiming a breach of Clause 1 of the Editor’s Code, which covers accuracy.

Bird said the article was inaccurate because he had not had sex with a dog as the original headline had claimed.

He also said the both the print and the updated online article were inaccurate as he had not filmed himself performing a “sex act” with the dog.

He said the video had shown a stud dog mating with a bitch and that he had been touching the dog’s penis to assist it in mating.

Bird maintained it had been made clear in court was that, whilst the video was sexual in nature, there was no sexual gratification for anyone involved and that the video was sent as an insult during an argument.

The Press said it did not consider that there was a significant difference between “having sex with” and “performing a sex act on”.

However, it said its policy was to always correct an inaccuracy and so the headline was changed within ten minutes of the complaint being received, the day after the online article was published.

A clarification below the headline was added to the article four days later. As the inaccurate headline had not appeared in print, the publication said it was not appropriate to publish a correction in print.

The clarification read:  “This report was edited to change the original headline which said, ‘Man filmed himself having sex with dog’ to ‘Man filmed himself in sex act with dog’. Neil Gareth Bird did not have sex with a dog; he filmed himself in a sexual act with a canine.”

In its ruling, IPSO said it considered that aiding a dog in mating with another dog did not constitute the complainant “having sex with”, which implied penetrative sexual activity.

The Code Committee considered, therefore, it was misleading for the online headline to claim that the complainant had “ha[d] sex with” a dog and that the Press had not taken care to not publish inaccurate or misleading information, in breach of Clause 1(i)

However, regarding the print article and the amended online headline, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to use the term “sex act” where it was heard in court that the complainant accepted it was “sexual in nature” and where the complainant had held the dog’s penis during mating.

The publication had amended the headline immediately after receiving the complaint, and had published the clarification promptly and with due prominence, as a result of which no further action was required.

Bird also made complaints in relation to other aspects of the article, which were not upheld.

The full ruling can be seen here.