Press watchdog throws out police complaint about Nottinghamshire Live's coverage of attacks briefing
The press watchdog has upheld Nottinghamshire Live's right to report that we were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement before a briefing with police in the wake of the Nottingham attacks.
A complaint by Nottinghamshire Police to the Independent Press Standards Organisation over several of our articles relating to a briefing on killer Valdo Calocane was not upheld, following a four-month long investigation.
IPSO ruled that Nottinghamshire Live's use of the term 'non disclosure agreement' in relation to an email we were asked to write before being allowed entry to a 'non disclosure briefing' in February this year was not 'significantly inaccurate'.
Journalists from Nottinghamshire Live and other media outlets covering the horrific stabbings of June 13, 2023, had been invited to a briefing with Nottinghamshire Police in February, but had to agree in writing to this being a 'non-disclosure' meeting before they could hear what Chief Constable Kate Meynell had to say. This, in the view of Nottinghamshire Live, was an unprecedented step to prevent reporting on the briefing's contents - which included the fact one of Calocane's former flatmates had reported being stalked by him in April and July 2022.
Nottinghamshire Police and the National Police Chiefs' Council submitted a 64-page complaint to IPSO - the independent regulator for the print and digital news industries - after Nottinghamshire Live's series of stories explaining this situation to readers. We initially published a story explaining the attempt to prevent reporting, and thereafter we took the decision to publish a further story containing the stalking reports due to the overwhelming public interest justification in doing so. The force complained it was inaccurate to call the arrangement a non-disclosure agreement, but on Monday, September 16, IPSO concluded coverage "did not include any inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information".
The force also claimed an article had inaccurately suggested Calocane was roaming the streets when he should not have been and that the police may have failed in their duty to protect the public. IPSO concluded the article was expressing the views of the publication and we were entitled to comment on any potential failings that could be uncovered by the ongoing Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation into its handling of the case.
The Committee said in its ruling: "In circumstances where the publication was required to commit in writing not to report the information which was disclosed at the briefing as a condition of attendance, the Committee did not consider that it was significantly inaccurate to describe the arrangement in the terms used by the newspaper."
Police also complained that our use of the word 'unprecedented' in relation to the briefing was inaccurate. On this point, the Committee found: "[We] considered the publication’s position that “unprecedented” was its characterisation of the briefing and this was indicated by the use of “we” in “we believe this unprecedented step is an attempt to prevent reporting."
"It also noted that the term “unprecedented” is subjective in meaning and that the publication could not remember a previous time in the last decade where it had had to confirm in writing to follow the terms of a “non disclosure” briefing. In addition, this was supported by the complainant’s own submissions – that the Nottingham Attacks and the high level of media interest was unprecedented in itself, so that it held a large off-the-record briefing, which it had not done before. For this reason, the Committee did not consider the term “unprecedented” to be inaccurate."
Furthermore, the Committee clarified that the Editors' Code does not require articles to be balanced, and that publications such as Nottinghamshire Live are "entitled to give their opinion provided this is distinguished as such".
Editor of Nottinghamshire Live, Natalie Fahy, said: "I've worked as a journalist for nearly 20 years and I just knew something wasn't right about the way we were being asked to commit to a promise in writing before being allowed to attend this briefing with Nottinghamshire Police.
"We increasingly find that various institutions try to curtail our freedoms as an independent press and it's important to take a stand when any of them go too far. I hope no police force tries to do something like this again to any other news team and that the communications team and the National Police Chiefs' Council use this ruling to improve their working practices moving forward.
"I am grateful to the IPSO Committee for taking the time to investigate the complaint fully."
The scandal-hit police force, which was put into special measures in March over problems with its investigations and how it supports victims, also claimed Nottinghamshire Live had implied it had tried to deliberately cover up the content of the media briefing. The press regulator's committee said it was not disputed that the police did not want the information about Calocane's alleged stalkings shared and added the headline was supported by the article's content.
Nottinghamshire Police also complained about an X post which quoted victim Ian Coates' son James stating that chief constable Kate Meynell was "hiding away behind emails". IPSO dismissed these complaints, as well as a claim that the police had not been given a right of reply.
The complaint was investigated by IPSO's committee, which is chaired by Lord Faulks and includes 11 other members from a diverse range of backgrounds and experiences such as education, law, media, policing and politics. One member was not present for the consideration of this particular complaint, bringing the total committee down to 11 members.
It found no breaches of the Editors’ Code of Practice, and no remedial action is required as a result of the complaint.
Previously the families of killed Barnaby Webber, 19, Grace O'Malley-Kumar, 19, and Ian Coates, 65, criticised the police's non-disclosure meeting, explaining that they could not understand why police had "endeavoured to shackle the media from reporting on their conduct or investigations".
The rebuttal of the force's complaint is, in our opinion, another concerning aspect in its handling of the fall-out from the Nottingham attacks. Nottinghamshire Police's interactions with Calocane are still under investigation by policing watchdog the IOPC, but it has previously admitted to failing to find Calocane before he fatally stabbed University of Nottingham students Barnaby and Grace and beloved school caretaker Ian.
The paranoid schizophrenic was wanted in the nine months leading up his brutal killings as he had failed to appear in court after assaulting a police officer - but officers could not find him. The force has also had to discipline several officers for viewing and accessing information on the attacks when they had no professional reason to do so.
A special constable was sacked for viewing bodycam footage of the horrific stabbings, while others were reprimanded for sharing information about the case and breaching confidentiality standards. The families of Calocane's victims previously said there have been "grievous failings in both the management of this investigation and also in alarming failures and missed opportunities in previous contact with Calocane" and have accused the force of "misinformation" and "mistruths".
You can read the IPSO ruling in full on their website here.