Briefings

Fewer than 3% of Intrusion into Grief complaints upheld

12/07/2022

Newspaper
✕ Press claim

✓ The truth

Reach
Up to
people misled
Help us fight back

Join 71,384 others who are taking action to share the truth & raise standards in the press

1. Share the truth
Post this rebuttal on social media
2. Fund the fightback
Help us challenge more stories like this
Donate
3. Tell your MP
Send a ready-written email in 30 seconds
Email your MP

Research carried out by Hacked Off has revealed the strikingly low proportion of “Intrusion into grief or shock” complaints upheld against the press.

Of 257 complaints of press intrusion into grief to be processed by the sham regulator, only 7 have ever been upheld.

That’s less than 3%, and leaves up to 250 individuals and families to have faced press intrusion at a time of  distress without remedy from IPSO.

But you won’t read their stories in the newspapers.

There are provisions against this kind of press treatment which are set out in the Editors Code of Practice.

Clause 4 of the Editors’ Code, “Intrusion into grief or shock”, states,

Enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively.

But our research suggests that IPSO is failing to enforce them adequately.

The Press and the People

In fact, our new film shares the stories of four people who faced press misconduct after a bereavement.

‍

‍

Newspaper editors tell us that ‘everything has changed’ since Leveson’s report 10 years ago.

But nothing has changed.  All of the people featured in The Press and the People experienced press intrusion after Leveson, in just the last few years.

National newspapers get away with this because IPSO is not fit for purpose and cannot be trusted to enforce standards effectively.

The only way to protect ordinary people from press intrusion after a traumatic event is proper regulation, as recommended by Sir Brian Leveson.

Access the data for this research here.

‍

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

SLAPPs and the press: why the Anti-SLAPP Bill is the wrong answer
The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale would apply to any claim touching a matter of public interest, however meritorious and however properly brought. Hacked Off sets out why it would harm victims of press abuse, and why section 40 was the better answer.
9/21/26
Briefings
Reporting montage
Professor Arday, IPSO, and the press: steps to end the cycle of tragedy
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg, Professor of Media Law at the University of Leeds, on why the press hounding of Professor Jason Arday will happen again unless politicians act.
8/16/26
Briefings
Daily Mail Hacking Trial
All the latest on the allegations in the Mail hacking trial
2/12/26
Briefings