Last reviewed: Next review due:
What is the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice?
The Editors’ Code of Practice is the set of ethical standards that IPSO-member publications agree to abide by as a condition of their membership. It covers 16 areas of journalistic practice including accuracy, privacy, harassment, protection of children, reporting of crime, financial journalism, and protection of confidential sources. Unlike the NUJ Code — which binds individual journalists — the Editors’ Code binds the publications themselves, and responsibility rests with the editor.
The Code is an industry-set standard: it is written and updated by the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, chaired by an editor of a major national title. IPSO’s role is to enforce the Code through its complaints process — it does not write the Code. This structural separation is one of the key criticisms of the post-Leveson press regulation settlement.
For the full clause-by-clause breakdown with worked examples, see our complete IPSO Editors’ Code guide. For the complaints procedure from the publication side, see Right of Reply.
When the Editors’ Code matters most
- 1When you are working for an IPSO-regulated publication and need to understand your obligations before publication.
- 2When a subject of your reporting is threatening an IPSO complaint — understanding the Code helps you assess whether a complaint would succeed.
- 3When seeking to rely on the public interest exception for intrusive reporting.
- 4When reporting on sensitive subjects: children, victims of sexual assault, suicide, and people in grief.
- 5When a complaint has been made and you need to understand the adjudication process and likely outcomes.
- 6When assessing whether a correction is legally and ethically required, and what prominence it should have.
- 7When using hidden cameras, listening devices, or other covert methods — the Code sets a high bar.
The 16 clauses at a glance
These are editorial summaries only. Always refer to the full text at ipso.co.uk for the authoritative wording.
Clause 1: Accuracy
Press must not publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images. Significant inaccuracies must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
Clause 2: Privacy
Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life. Public interest may override this. Journalists must not use long-lens cameras to take pictures of people in private places without consent.
Clause 3: Harassment
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit. Desist on request unless justified by public interest.
Clause 4: Intrusion into grief or shock
Special care must be taken to avoid intruding into grief or shock. Inquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion. Publication must not re-open grief without justification.
Clause 5: Reporting suicide
When reporting suicide, publications must be careful not to publish excessive detail of the method used. Safe messaging guidance must be applied.
Clause 6: Children
Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child's welfare without parental/guardian consent. Children in sex cases must not be identified.
Clause 7: Children in sex cases
No child under 18 may be identified as the victim of a sexual offence, regardless of whether the case has come to court.
Clause 8: Hospitals
Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission before entering non-public areas of hospitals or similar institutions. Patients must not be filmed or interviewed without consent.
Clause 9: Reporting of crime
Family members of persons convicted or accused of crime must not be identified unless relevant. Children must not be identified as relatives of persons accused/convicted.
Clause 10: Clandestine devices and subterfuge
Journalists must not use hidden cameras, listening devices, or intercept private communications except where justified by an overriding public interest.
Clause 11: Victims of sexual assault
The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification, whether or not the case has come to court.
Clause 12: Discrimination
The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, or disability.
Clause 13: Financial journalism
Journalists must not use financial information received in advance of its general publication for personal investment. They must not write about securities they hold without disclosure.
Clause 14: Confidential sources
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.
Clause 15: Witness payments in criminal trials
No payment or offer of payment may be made to witnesses in criminal proceedings once court proceedings are active. Pre-charge payments require editorial oversight.
Clause 16: Payment to criminals
Editors must exercise care regarding payment or offers of payment to convicted or confessed criminals, and to their associates — especially if the payment is for stories glorifying crime.
Red flags — common routes to an upheld complaint
- Publishing an inaccuracy and failing to correct it promptly and with due prominence.
- Using long-lens photography in what the subject could reasonably expect to be a private place.
- Publishing information about a child under 16 on a welfare issue without parental consent.
- Identifying the victim of a sexual offence — even indirectly, even in an online update.
- Making persistent contact with a person after they have asked for contact to stop.
- Relying on the public interest exception without being able to demonstrate proportionality and necessity.
- Running a story based on information obtained via hacking, phone interception, or unlawful access to private communications.
- Publishing discriminatory content using pejorative language about a group protected under Clause 12.
Pre-publication Editors’ Code checklist
- Every factual claim is accurate, not misleading, and capable of being demonstrated if challenged.
- Any significant correction from a previous story has been published with due prominence.
- I have not identified any victim of a sexual offence — directly or indirectly.
- Children under 16 who feature in the story have parental/guardian consent where required.
- Any intrusion into someone's private life can be justified by a genuine and proportionate public interest.
- Where I used covert methods, I can document that public interest was overriding and that less intrusive means were unavailable or had failed.
- I have not published detail about suicide methods in a way that breaches safe messaging guidance.
- I have not made pejorative or prejudicial reference to someone's protected characteristics without clear justification.
- I have not used information about securities or investments in a way that would breach Clause 13.
- If a correction or right-of-reply obligation has been triggered, I have addressed it before publication or immediately afterwards.
Ethics decision tool
Work through a difficult editorial decision — including IPSO Code compliance and public interest assessment — with our ethics flowchart.
Open Ethics FlowchartThe IPSO vs IMPRESS debate
The Leveson Inquiry recommended a new, genuinely independent press regulator recognised by Royal Charter. IMPRESS is the only regulator recognised by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) established under that Charter. IPSO is not PRP-recognised because critics argue it does not meet the Leveson criteria for independence from the industry — principally because the Editors’ Code is written by editors and IPSO’s funding comes from publishers.
The practical consequence for journalists is the Section 40 issue: under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, publications regulated by a recognised regulator (IMPRESS) are protected against having to pay a claimant’s legal costs in defamation and privacy cases, even if they win — unless the publication acted unreasonably. Publications regulated by IPSO do not have this protection. Section 40 was never brought into force, so this distinction has not yet had full practical effect, but it remains a live political and legal question.
Common mistakes
- Assuming IPSO membership protects the journalist — it protects the publication, not individuals.
- Confusing accuracy complaints (Clause 1) with defamation — IPSO cannot award damages; its remedy is correction and publication of adjudication.
- Using the public interest defence as a blanket justification without being able to demonstrate proportionality.
- Running a correction that is buried on page 30 when the original story was page 1 — IPSO requires due prominence.
- Assuming IPSO will not uphold complaints about online-only content — it applies to digital editions of regulated titles.
- Forgetting the four-month complaints window — complainants who miss it will generally be time-barred.