The Nottingham Post has been vindicated after publishing articles about a “non-disclosable” police briefing relating to a stabbing attack that rocked the city last year.
The Reach-owned title reported in February and March that Nottinghamshire Police had held a “non-disclosable briefing” for press about contact they had with Valdo Calocane before he committed a triple murder spree.
In June last year Calocane stabbed to death two university students, Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley, and school caretaker Ian Coates.
The Nottingham Post and its website Nottinghamshire Live published the headline: “Police don’t want us to tell whole story of attacks investigation / Police ask Post not to publish details around June 13 attacks.”
Related
It said of the briefing, which 35 reporters attended remotely under the agreement that the information was non-reportable: “We believe this unprecedented step is an attempt to prevent reporting.”
They then followed up with: “Reported twice for ‘stalking’ before he went on to kill / Flatmate twice told police he was being stalked by Calocane who, within a year, became a killer.”
Content from our partners
And: “Why the Post is publishing details from police briefing with non-disclosure clause,” along with associated social media posts.
Nottinghamshire Police billed it as ‘non-disclosure briefing’
Nottinghamshire Police had argued it was inaccurate to report it had asked the publication to sign a non-disclosure agreement because no legal document had been drawn up or signed.
However the publication was able to provide an email it had received with the subject: “Non-disclosure briefing with the Chief Constable.”
The email read: “The following non-disclosure briefing will be taking place today with the Chief Constable. You will need to confirm in writing that you agree that this is a non-disclosure briefing, none of the information in this briefing is for reporting.
“You won’t be invited into the meeting unless you can confirm and accept the above with an email.”
The editor responded to confirm the attendance of a reporter, who sent their own email which read: “Thanks for sending over the link to register – I confirm to abide by the non-disclosure briefing agreement.”
After the briefing the editor sent a further email asking: “Would you be able to explain please why this briefing was subject to a non-disclosure agreement?”
In a follow-up email the police said: “The reason we can’t talk about some of the information in the public domain is because it could prejudice the independent investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and the review being conducted by the College of Policing.”
In its ruling, IPSO said: “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.”
The police force took issue with the suggestion it was keeping information from the families of the victims and the public and argued that background briefings with “off-the-record” information have long been held – the only difference in this case was the scale of it with so many journalists attending.
IPSO said in response that the publication was entitled to use its own characterisation of the briefing as “unprecedented” especially as it could not remember a previous time in the past decade where it had to confirm in writing 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,” the complaints committee said.
Nottinghamshire Police also complained about a post claiming the Chief Constable was “hiding away” from the victims’ families but IPSO said this was presented as a quote, having come from a son of one of the victims, so it was not inaccurate.
The force had also complained about the fact it had not been asked for comment but IPSO said it had been alerted by Nottinghamshire Live to the fact that it was planning to publish information from the briefing and that there is no obligation to offer a right of reply, especially considering the article “did not include any inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”.
Editor: ‘I just knew something wasn’t right’
Nottinghamshire Police had wanted a front page print and online correction and apology but ultimately the complaint was rejected.
Nottinghamshire Live editor 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.”
Read the full IPSO ruling here.
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
