A man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Thurrock.nub.news breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors' Code of Practice in an article headlined "Concern grows following adverse impact of refugees in borough - amid residents' fears that more will be coming", published on 11 April 2020.

The article reported on an estate which was being used to house refugees. The article reported various comments expressed by area residents including that "some of [the refugees] have been pictured gathering in numbers and smoking from hookahs, with strong smells of cannabis floating across the area". The article also included an image of two men, sitting outside smoking from a shisha pipe, which was captioned "The refugees have been pictured by their neighbours who complain the smell of drugs is drifting towards their homes".

The complainant was one of the men pictured. He said that the image showed him in the back garden of his home, where he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and had been taken and published without his knowledge or consent. He noted that the image clearly identified him, and that people had recognised him from the image. He also said that the publication of the photograph in the context of the article had revealed his refugee status, which was private information. The publication of the photograph which identified him as a refugee, along with the name of the street he was living on, put him at risk from those he was seeking refuge from. The complainant also said that the article was inaccurate as it contained a picture of him smoking tobacco from a shisha pipe, a legal substance, but described this as a "drug" and further references to "cannabis" in the article suggested he had been smoking illegal drugs. The publication did not accept that the photograph of the complainant had been taken whilst he was in the back garden of his home, and also said that the article did not intrude into the complainant's private life because it was published in the public interest as it helped protect public health and safety, which was threatened by the use of illegal drugs on the estate. However, it accepted both that it did not know what the complainant had been smoking in the photograph and that the article could inaccurately imply that the complainant was pictured smoking an illegal substance.

IPSO ruled that, in all the circumstances, the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy both in relation to the photograph and his status as a refugee, which is information which related to his private and family life. Publishing the photograph and the information regarding his refugee status without his consent constituted an unjustified intrusion into his private life. IPSO did not accept that publication was in the public interest. IPSO found that the article breached Clause 2.

The publication had not offered an adequate correction which made clear that the complainant had not been smoking an illegal drug in the photograph. IPSO found that the article also breached Clause 1.