IPSO Editors' Code 2025

This guide is for journalists, editors, and freelancers working for IPSO-regulated publications in the UK. It explains every clause of the Code in plain English, walks through how IPSO adjudicates complaints, and highlights the most common compliance pitfalls. If you work for a publication regulated by IMPRESS, Ofcom, or unregulated entirely, the Code does not formally bind you — but its principles reflect general ethical standards across UK journalism.

What Is IPSO and Who Does It Regulate?

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is the primary regulator for the majority of UK newspapers and magazines. Its Editors' Code of Practice, maintained by the Editors' Code of Practice Committee, sets the standards that regulated publications must follow. The 2025 edition introduces several important clarifications that every journalist working under IPSO regulation should understand.

IPSO was established in 2014 as the successor to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). It regulates over 2,500 print and online publications in the UK, including most national newspapers, regional titles, and many digital-only outlets. Notable exceptions include The Guardian, Financial Times, and publications regulated by IMPRESS.

If your publication is regulated by IPSO, complaints can be made against your work under the Editors' Code. IPSO has the power to require corrections, adjudications, and — in the most serious cases — impose fines of up to one million pounds.

The 16 Clauses of the Editors' Code

Clause 1: Accuracy

The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text. A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. This is the clause most frequently cited in IPSO complaints and the one most likely to lead to an adjudication.

Clause 2: Privacy

Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications. It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. A public interest exception may be argued.

Clause 3: Harassment

Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit. They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist, nor remain on property when asked to leave. This clause applies regardless of whether the person is a public figure.

Clause 4: Intrusion into Grief or Shock

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings. Clause 4 carries no public interest exception.

Clauses 5–8: Reporting Suicide, Children, Children in Sex Cases and Hospitals

These clauses cover reporting suicide (Clause 5), children (Clause 6), children in sex cases (Clause 7) and hospitals (Clause 8). Clause 5 asks that, to prevent simulative acts, care be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method used; the Samaritans' media guidelines on reporting suicide bear on this clause but are not part of the Code. The Code provides robust protections for children, and Clauses 6 and 7 are among those where a public interest exception may be argued. Journalists must not interview or photograph children under 16 on subjects involving their welfare without the consent of a parent or similar adult.

Clauses 9–12: Reporting of Crime, Subterfuge, Victims of Sexual Assault and Discrimination

These clauses cover the reporting of crime (Clause 9), clandestine devices and subterfuge (Clause 10), victims of sexual assault (Clause 11) and discrimination (Clause 12). Clause 10 restricts the use of clandestine devices, subterfuge, and misrepresentation: these methods may only be used where the material sought is in the public interest and cannot be obtained by other means. Clause 12 (Discrimination) requires that the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any physical or mental illness or disability. Separately, details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story; sex is not in that second list.

Clauses 13–16: Financial Journalism, Sources and Payments

The final clauses address financial journalism (Clause 13: journalists must not use financial information for their own profit before publication), confidential sources (Clause 14), witness payments in criminal trials (Clause 15) and payment to criminals (Clause 16).

Key Changes in the 2025 Edition

Digital communications: The privacy clause now explicitly covers digital communications, including encrypted messaging and social media direct messages.
AI-generated content: New guidance clarifies that the accuracy clause applies equally to AI-generated text and images. Publications must ensure AI-produced content meets the same standards as human-written material.
Online corrections: Updated guidance on the prominence of online corrections, including requirements for social media platforms where articles have been shared.
Mental health reporting: Strengthened guidance on reporting about mental health, including expanded advice on terminology and framing.

The Public Interest Exception

Several clauses of the Editors' Code include a public interest exception. The Code defines the public interest as including:

Detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety
Protecting public health or safety
Protecting the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation
Disclosing a person or organisation's failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which they are subject
Raising or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public

Crucially, the editor invoking the public interest must demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication would serve the public interest at the time the decision was made, even if subsequent events prove them wrong. This is a subjective test, not an objective one.

How IPSO Adjudicates Complaints

If a complaint is made against your publication, IPSO will first attempt to mediate a resolution. If mediation fails, the complaint may be referred to the Complaints Committee for adjudication. The process typically takes several weeks, and journalists should cooperate fully with their publication's legal and compliance teams throughout.

For freelancers, complaints are made against the publication, not the individual journalist. However, if your work is found to breach the Code, it can affect your professional reputation and your relationship with commissioning editors. Published adjudications appear on IPSO's website and are searchable by publication and clause.

Key tip: Always consult the relevant clause of the Code before publication, not after a complaint arrives. The Editors' Code of Practice Committee publishes the Editors' Codebook at editorscode.org.uk, and IPSO publishes its own guidance notes on particular subjects — among them court reporting, children, deaths and inquests, suicide, sexual offences and social media — rather than one note per clause. If you are unsure whether your newsgathering method or content is Code-compliant, seek advice from your publication's legal team in advance.

Practical Tips for Compliance

Always seek comment from the subject of a critical story before publication
Keep detailed notes of your newsgathering methods, especially if using any form of subterfuge
When in doubt about privacy, apply the “reasonable expectation” test — would the subject reasonably expect that activity to be private?
If you make a mistake, correct it promptly and prominently — do not wait for a complaint
Familiarise yourself with the full text of the Code and IPSO's published guidance notes before commencing any sensitive investigation

Practical Checklist

Run through this before publishing any story that could attract a Code complaint:

Checked the relevant clause(s) of the Code against your story's content and newsgathering method
Sought comment from the subject of any critical claim
Headline is supported by the text of the article (Clause 1)
No private information disclosed without a genuine public interest justification (Clause 2)
Any detail of race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or physical or mental illness or disability mentioned only where genuinely relevant (Clause 12(ii))
If subterfuge or clandestine methods were used, public interest case documented in writing
Children's identities in sexual offence or welfare cases protected
Corrections procedure known and ready to activate if a factual error is discovered post-publication

Common Mistakes

Not consulting the Code before publication: The most common compliance failure is treating the Code as something to check after a complaint arrives rather than a pre-publication tool.
Conflating IPSO with a statutory regulator: IPSO is a voluntary self-regulator. Regulated publications sign a contract with IPSO; it has no power over unregulated publications and is not a government body.
Assuming the public interest defence is automatic: Editors must be able to show they specifically considered the public interest and that it was the primary motivation for using intrusive methods.
Failing to correct prominently online: A brief amendment buried in the footer of an article will not satisfy the “due prominence” requirement. The correction should be as prominent as the original error.
Using a person's race, religion, or disability without relevance: Clause 12 is breached even when the reference is not pejorative if the characteristic is not genuinely relevant to the story.
Confusing IPSO with IMPRESS: IMPRESS is the alternative press regulator recognised under the Royal Charter; The Guardian, FT, and some digital outlets are regulated separately or not at all. Always check which regulator (if any) governs your publication.

Red Flags

A story where the only public interest justification for intrusive newsgathering is that the subject is famous
A headline that is stronger than the evidence in the body of the piece
A story that mentions a person's mental health condition, sexuality, or disability in a context where it is not relevant to the editorial purpose
Newsgathering involving deception or subterfuge where no contemporaneous note of the public interest reasoning was made
A correction that has been worded to minimise the original error rather than state it clearly

Primary Sources

Editors' Code of Practice Committee — full Code text and guidance notes
IPSO: The Editors' Code — adjudications, guidance, and complaints process
NUJ Code of Conduct — ethical obligations for NUJ members
Ofcom Broadcasting Code — for broadcast journalists
IMPRESS Standards Code — alternative regulator for non-IPSO publications
IPSO Code Hub — clause-by-clause index and adjudication summaries
NUJ Code of Conduct Explained

Jurisdiction note: The IPSO Editors' Code applies to publications that have signed a contract with IPSO, which includes most major UK print and online newspapers and magazines. It is not a statutory instrument: it binds publications contractually rather than by law, and it does so across the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. What differs between the nations is the surrounding law — Scotland has its own legal system, with its own contempt, defamation and court-reporting rules — not the reach of the Code. Broadcast journalists in the UK are regulated by Ofcom, not IPSO. The BBC is subject to the BBC Editorial Guidelines and Ofcom oversight.

Quick answer