A city news website intruded into a rape victim’s grief and shock by publishing details of her physical reaction to the attack, the press watchdog has ruled.

The victim complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation over a report of the case published by Aberdeen Live in October 2023.

It described the rape and assault, including comments made by the defendant during the attack and quoting the prosecutor’s description of the victim’s reactions during the attack.

The article noted that the attack had taken place in the complainant’s home, referred to the suburb where she lived, specified the date and time of the attack, and gave her age.

The complainant said that the article had not reported on her rape and assault in a sensitive way, in breach of Clause 4 of the Editor’s Code which covers intrusion into grief or shock.

She specifically objected to the detailed description of her physical reaction to the attack and publication of comments made to her by her attacker during the attack, saying the publication of this level of detail had re-traumatised her.

The Reach-owned website apologised for any upset and distress the complainant had experienced by the publication of the article, stating this was not its intention, but that this was a risk when publishing information about serious crimes.

It said all of the information under complaint had been heard in open court, including the details of the attack, the complainant’s reaction to the attack, and the words used by the attacker, which it considered it was entitled to report.

In its ruling, the Code Committee said that details surrounding the nature of the crime itself, which were heard in court, did not themselves amount to an intrusion into the complainant’s grief and shock.

However, the Committee had “concerns” regarding the references to the complainant’s physical reaction to the attack contained within the article.

It said: “These details did not amount to, or form part of, the crime committed by the attacker – but rather were the complainant’s personal reaction as the victim of a horrific crime, deeply personal and with the clear potential to be extremely intrusive to the complainant.

“The Committee recognised that in some circumstances the publication of such personal and intrusive details may be justified. However, no such justification was put forward in these circumstances for the Committee to consider.”

The complaint was upheld under Clause 4 and website ordered to publish a summary of the adjudication.  The full ruling can be read here.

Complaints under Clauses 2 (Privacy) and 11 (Victims of sexual assault) were not upheld.