Meghan Markle attack that sparked 25K complaints was 'humiliating and degrading'

The 63-year-old wrote that he was "dreaming of the day when [Meghan] is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while crowds chant, 'Shame!' and throw lumps of excrement at her".

Ipso chairman Lord Faulks described the imagery as “humiliating and degrading towards the Duchess”.

The Sussexes accused Clarkson of spreading “hate rhetoric” and spreading “dangerous conspiracy and misogyny”.

The Sun and Clarkson both apologised after the column was published in December 2022.

The tabloid later removed the article from its website.

The ex-Top Gear host also stressed he had been thinking about a scene in Game of Thrones but forgot to mention to show because the column was written in a hurry.

However, Ipso rejected complaints about Clarkson’s column being discriminatory on the grounds of race, inaccurate or sought to harass the mother-of-two.

The regulator considered complaints brought forward by charities The Fawcett Society and The Wilde Foundation.

Ipso's chief executive Charlotte Dewar confirmed the complaints had not come from the Duchess of Sussex.

The Sun has published a summary of Ipso’s findings but not accepted that it breached the editor's code, saying concerns raised were a "matter of taste and judgement".

The tabloid said in a statement: “After Jeremy Clarkson's column was published in December, both The Sun and Jeremy Clarkson apologised.

“We said we regretted publishing the article and removed it from our website.

“The Sun accepts that with free expression comes responsibility.

“Half of The Sun's readers are women and we have a very long and proud history of campaigning for women which has changed the lives of many.”

Further explaining why the column was sexist, the IPSO complaints committee ruled: "Specifically: the writer's claim that the Duchess exercised power via her sexual hold over her husband which, in the view of the Committee, was a reference to stereotypes about women using their sexuality to gain power.

"[It] also implied that it was the Duchess' sexuality - rather than any other attribute or accomplishment - which was the source of her power.

"To argue that a woman is in a position of influence due to 'vivid bedroom promises', to compare the hatred of an individual to other women only, and to reference a fictional scene of public humiliation given to a sexually manipulative woman, read as a whole, amounted to a breach of Clause 12 (i)."

The ruling added: "The Editors' Code of Practice protects the right of commentators to challenge, to shock, be satirical and entertain, but it states that the press must avoid discriminatory references towards an individual.

"By holding publications to account, we promote the standards of journalism set out in the Editors' Code of Practice.

"We will take action where these standards are not met, such as in this article which contained pejorative and prejudicial language in an article discussing a woman."