01572-24 Nottinghamshire Police v Nottingham Post

Summary of Complaint

1. Nottinghamshire Police complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Nottingham Post breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the following articles and social media posts:

·An article headlined “Police don't want us to tell whole story of attacks investigation / Police ask Post not to publish details around June 13 attacks”, published on 24 February 2024.

·An article headlined "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" published on 1 March 2024.

·An article headlined "Why the Post is publishing details from police briefing with non-disclosure clause" published on 1 March 2024.

·A Facebook post which said "Nottinghamshire Police does not want us to publish details relating to police conduct around the Nottingham attacks" published on 23 February 2024.

·An X post which said: "Nottinghamshire Police does not want us to publish details relating to police conduct around the Nottingham attacks" published on 23 February 2024.

·A Facebook post which said: "Today Nottinghamshire Live is publishing details from a non-disclosable briefing with police about the contact they had with Valdo Calocane before he killed three people …" published on 29 February 2024.

·An X post which said: "Today Nottinghamshire Live is publishing details from a non-disclosable briefing with police about the contact they had with Valdo Calocane before he killed three people..." published on 29 February 2024.

·An X post which said: "It's not something we've ever done before, or something we take lightly, but we believe it's crucially important the public knows about it" published on 29 February 2024.

·An X post which said: "The Chief Constable of #Nottinghamshire Police is "hiding away behind emails" from the families of those killed in the Nottingham attacks, the son of [a victim] has said" published on 7 March 2024.

2. The first article reported on a press briefing Nottinghamshire Police held in relation to an incident in Nottingham. The article appeared on the front page and continued on page five; the front page contained a subheading which said “The Post was asked to agree to ‘non-disclosure’ before attending a briefing with the Chief Constable. We believe this unprecedented step is an attempt to prevent reporting”. The article went on to report “Nottinghamshire Police does not want the Post to publish details relating to police conduct around the Nottingham attacks. Journalists from the Nottingham Post, and various other media outlets covering the horrific stabbings on June 13 last year, were invited to an off-the-record media briefing with Nottinghamshire Police at 12.30pm on Thursday.”

3. The article said that “The Post understands one of Nottinghamshire Police’s reasons for not publicly disclosing the information is that current Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigations into their actions around contact with killer Valdo Calocane could be prejudiced by the information given out in the briefing – despite it being information the IOPC should already be aware of.” The article also quoted the CEO of The News Media Association, who reportedly said: “Good communication between the police and the media is essential to ensuring that the public interest is properly served. We are very concerned by reports of Nottinghamshire Police apparently using a non-disclosure agreement to prevent the media reporting matters in the public interest relating to a recent high-profile case in the country.”

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same form under the headline “Nottinghamshire Live prevented from publishing details around Nottingham attacks by police” on 23 February 2024. This version of the article included the subheading: “We were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement before a briefing with the Chief Constable”.

5. The second article – which appeared on the front page and continued on pages four and five - reported on previous reports of stalking to the police prior to the fatal attacks perpetrated by Valdo Calocane. The front page stated “One of killer Valdo Calocane’s flatmates twice reported him to police for alleged stalking the year before he stabbed three people to death in Nottingham. The information was revealed to journalists at a Nottinghamshire Police briefing, before which reporters were asked to commit in writing not to disclose what they were told” and that “The Post has taken the decision that it is in the public interest to report these details”. The article went on to report on page four: “The Post has taken the decision that it is in the public interest to report details from a non-disclosure briefing with police on details regarding their contact with triple killer Valdo Calocane before he stabbed three people to death on our city’s streets in June last year. Journalists from the Post, and various other media outlets covering the horrific attacks on June 13 2023, were invited to a “non-disclosure” briefing with Nottinghamshire Police at 12.30pm on Thursday, February 22”. The article said that making “media sign a non-disclosure agreement before a briefing is the opposite of transparency – particularly when the matters are not background for accurate reporting, but are new facts relating to a case that is hugely in the public interest”.

6. The second article also appeared online in substantially the same form under the headline “Nottingham attacks killer Valdo Calocane ‘stalked flatmate twice’ before stabbings” on 29 February 2024.

7. The third article – which appeared on page five next to the second article and was headlined “Why the Post is publishing details from police briefing with non-disclosure clause” - reported on the newspaper’s decision to publish details from the press briefing. It said that “The Post has today decided to publish details from a non-disclosable briefing with police which detailed further information on their contact with triple killer Valdo Calocane”. The article reported “we were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement before a briefing with Chief Constable [named individual] last week. We’ve never been asked to do this with any public body in Nottinghamshire before, and we’ve had plenty of off-the-record steers and conversations. Police have since said this is standard practice and in line with their professional standards. We felt we had no choice but to sign and go along to the briefing as we were told we wouldn’t be allowed in without that written confirmation”. It also said: “At the heart of this are three families whose lives have been destroyed by the actions of a man who should not have been roaming”.

8. The third article also appeared online in substantially the same form headlined “Why Nottinghamshire Live is publishing details from a non-disclosable police briefing on killer Valdo Calocane” and published on 29 February 2024.

9. On 23 February, the complainant complained directly to the publication setting out various inaccuracies and requesting the article be amended. On 26 February, it said it had not requested that the press sign an NDA. The publication replied with a substantive response which said it did not accept a breach of the Code had occurred.

10. On 11 April, the complainant complained to IPSO. It said the articles and social posts had breached Clause 1, as they had inaccurately claimed or indicated that the publication was asked by Nottinghamshire Police to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), a legally binding document, ahead of an off-the-record background briefing for journalists about issues regarding the Nottingham Attacks. The complainant said that NDAs are formal documents with a specific status in law which needed to be drawn up by a solicitor and signed by both parties and are legally enforceable with repercussions in law should one of the parties break the terms. The complainant said there was no legal relationship established or mechanism preventing the press reporting the briefing information. It said its confirmation of acceptance in an email along with other attendees was not comparable to an NDA. The complainant said it was the publication who had first used the term “non-disclosure agreement”. The complainant said that the editor did not raise any concerns upon receiving their initial invite, and that if she had genuinely thought it was an NDA she would have involved a solicitor. The complainant said that despite contacting the publication and making it aware of its concerns, it still went on to publish another article which said an NDA had been signed. The complainant said that that this was significant as it suggested the complainant was keeping information from the families of the victims and the public.

11. The complainant also said that the second article had stated “we had no choice but to sign” which was misleading as it suggested a “legal undertaking”. It said that, in fact, nothing was signed and the publication simply agreed to a background briefing that it registered for through MS Teams. It said the initial email sent to the local reporter at no point mentioned an NDA either.

12. The complainant provided various pieces of correspondence to support its position. On 22 February, the complainant sent an email to the publication with the subject: “Non-disclosure briefing with the Chief Constable”. The email said: “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 on the same day confirming another reporter would attend the briefing. The reporter then emailed the complainant and said “Thanks for sending over the link to register - I confirm to abide by the non-disclosure briefing agreement.” After the briefing, the editor sent an email which said, “would you be able to explain please why this briefing was subject to a non-disclosure agreement?”

13. The complainant sent a follow up email after the briefing which said “I would like to once again thank you for attending yesterday’s non-disclosable briefing. I would like to keep this channel of communication open.” It also explained: “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”.

14. The complainant said that the first article’s front-page headline “Police don’t want us to tell whole story of attacks investigation” implied that it was deliberately covering up information. It said that it had explained to the publication that it was the IOPC who had prevented the complainant from commenting. It said that this position had been confirmed by the IOPC.

15. The complainant also said reporting that holding a “non-disclosure” briefing as “unprecedented” was inaccurate – it said that, in fact, this was a common practice. The complainant explained that publications operate on a good faith basis not to report the information which is indicated as “off-the-record”. The complainant said that previously the police would have had many “off-the-record” conversations with journalists, and the only difference in this case was the scale - 35 reporters had attended the briefing due to the very large media interest in relation to the Nottingham Attacks.

16. The complainant said the second article headlined “Reported twice for ‘stalking’ before he went on to kill” was misleading and unbalanced as the “stalking” events it referred to were not criminal convictions, but rather were reports from someone known to Mr Calocane who said he “may” have been following them, but later did not pursue this. The complainant said conflating these reports with the attacks was not fair or balanced reporting. The complainant also said that the headline drew a clear connection between the alleged stalking incident and the murders which indicated Mr Calocane had not been stopped by the police. It said the article inaccurately suggested Mr 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.

17. Further the complainant said the second article had omitted to mention other agencies which were under review in relation to the matter and had just focused on the complainant.

18. The third article reported: “At the heart of this are three families whose lives have been destroyed by the actions of a man who shouldn't have been roaming our streets. We all need to know if the police have failed in their duty to protect the public”. The complainant said this implied judgment about whether Mr Calocane would or would not have been in prison at the time of the Nottingham Attacks in June 2023, even if apprehended. It said it was the role of the IOPC to investigate these issues and release accurate and considered findings, rather than the publication’s speculation.

19. In addition, the complainant said an X post claimed the Chief was 'hiding away' from the victims' families. The complainant said the Chief had given an open invitation to families to meet with her which it said the publication was aware of. It said although they put the ‘hiding’ element in inverted commas, it appeared in the headline.

20. The complainant also said it had not had an opportunity to comment. It requested an apology and correction which would reflect the prominence of the articles under complaint, such as a front page article in the print version and a top position on the website and social media.

21. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code: it said it had signed an NDA, which it considered were also known as confidentiality agreements. It said that the Editor of the publication was asked to "confirm in writing" that she agreed it was a "non-disclosure briefing" and that "none of the information in this briefing is for reporting." The publication said the email made clear that agreeing in writing was compulsory as it said: "You won’t be invited into the meeting unless you can confirm and accept the above with an email." The publication said the agreement was very clear; it covered all information at the briefing, and therefore publishing such information would be a breach of that agreement. It said it was not inaccurate or misleading to report that the publication was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement and that it "had no choice but to sign" if it wanted to attend the important briefing.

22. The publication added that the Editor specifically made reference to the NDA in her email to the complainant before any of the disputed articles were published, by asking: "Would you be able to explain please why this briefing was subject to a non-disclosure agreement?" It said the police’s Senior Media and External Relations Officer responded via email, which the publication provided, and did not appear to dispute or question the reference to “non-disclosure agreement”.

23. In response to the characterisation of “unprecedented”, the publication said the article clearly stated: "We [the publication] believe some of the information disclosed at the meeting is of huge public interest and we [the publication] believe this unprecedented step is an attempt to prevent reporting." It said it was the publication's view that the complainant’s actions were unprecedented as it had not – in at least ten years - requested that a non-disclosure agreement is confirmed and accepted in writing by the publication, whilst working with it.

24. With regard to the second article, the publication said the headline was supported by the body of the article which explained that "one of Calocane’s former flatmates reported being stalked by him after seeing him in the gym. In July 2022 the same person reported being stalked again by Calocane, with this incident officially reported and logged as stalking by police. This came after the alleged stalking victim had been to the same gym and said he was followed home by Calocane."

25. The publication did not accept that the third article was inaccurate.

26. The publication did not accept that the X post was inaccurate. It said this was a summary of the full quote within the article from one of the victim’s sons: "The Chief Constable [named individual] is hiding away behind emails, why can she not just pick up the phone?".

27. With regard to the complainant’s concerns about not approaching it for comment prior to the articles, the publication said it did not consider it was necessary to seek comment on whether it was a non-disclosure agreement, given the complainant had said in an email to the publication that in order to attend the briefing they must agree to not disclose the information. It said the publication did email the complainant on 29 February confirming that they planned to publish the information from the briefing on the grounds of public interest, and said it received no response. The publication provided this email to support its position.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator. 

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

28. The Committee first considered the complainant’s concerns that the articles and social media posts had inaccurately reported that the publication was required to sign an NDA to attend a police press briefing. The first article had quoted The News Media Association, who reportedly said: “We are very concerned by reports of Nottinghamshire Police apparently using a non-disclosure agreement” and the online subheading had stated: “We were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement before a briefing with the Chief Constable”. The second article reported: “Making media sign a non-disclosure agreement before a briefing is the opposite of transparency”. The third article said “we were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement before a briefing” and that “[w]e felt we had no choice but to sign and go along to the briefing as we were told we wouldn’t be allowed in without that written confirmation”.

29. While the Committee acknowledged that the parties had not signed a legal document, the Committee noted that press that wished to attend the briefing first had to confirm in writing that they “agree[d] that this is a non-disclosure briefing, none of the information in this briefing is for reporting” and that the complainant made clear that members of the press would not “be invited into the meeting unless [they] can confirm and accept the above with an email.” In advance of the meeting, the complainant had repeatedly referred to the briefing as a “non-disclosure briefing” and following the briefing as a “non-disclosable briefing”. 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. For these reasons, the Committee did not consider the articles and social media posts’ references to the briefing to be inaccurate, misleading or distorted and therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1.

30. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concern that the first article’s print headline implied it was deliberately covering up information. In this instance, the Committee noted that it was not in dispute that information was shared at the briefing which the complainant did not want the media to report on. Further, the text of the article set out a reason why the complainant had made this request: “The Post understands one of Nottinghamshire Police’s reasons for not publicly disclosing the information is that current Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigations into their actions around contact with killer Valdo Calocane could be prejudiced by the information given out in the briefing – despite it being information the IOPC should already be aware of.” Headlines act as summaries of an article and while they should be supported by the text of the article, it is not possible to summarise all the information in the article within the headline. In this instance, the headline was supported by the text of the article and there was no breach of Clause 1.

31. The Committee appreciated that the complainant did not consider their request for a “non-disclosable briefing” was “unprecedented” and that it commonly held “off-the-record” conversations with journalists and therefore this was common practice and advisable in some cases. The Committee 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. There was no breach of Clause 1.

32. In regard to the previous stalking accusations, the Committee noted that it was not in dispute that Mr Calocane’s roommate had raised concerns about him with police and that Mr Calocane had gone on to attack three members of the public resulting in their deaths. In addition, the articles were clear that it was “reports” of stalking, rather than a legal conviction. The Committee noted that newspapers are entitled to select which information they include in articles as long as it does not breach the Code. In this instance, the Committee did not consider the inclusion of this information to be inaccurate, particularly in the context of a report about the man behind the attacks. Further, the Committee noted that the article did not state that the complainant had failed in its duty to protect the public, but simply reported that reports had been made to the police about Mr Calocane’s previous behaviour. For these reasons, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point. In addition, the Editors’ Code does not require articles to be balanced.

33. Turning to the complainant’s concern that the second article had omitted to mention other agencies which were under review in relation to the incident, the Committee again noted that selection of information remains the choice of the newspaper, provided any omissions do not render the article significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted. In this instance, the article focused on the complainant’s role in the incident, and it was not inaccurate to omit the existence of reviews or investigations into other organisations. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

34. The Committee noted that the third article was an editorial which discussed the decision to publish information heard at the briefing. The article said: “At the heart of this are three families whose lives have been destroyed by the actions of a man who shouldn't have been roaming our streets. We all need to know if the police have failed in their duty to protect the public”. Newspapers are entitled to give their opinion provided this is distinguished as such. In this case, the article was expressing the views of the publication and was entitled to comment on any potential failings of the complainant and findings of an ongoing investigation into the handling of the case by the complainant. It also made clear it was considering “if” the police had failed. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

35. Next, the Committee considered the X post which the complainant said inaccurately referred to the Chief “'hiding away' from the victims' families” as it said she had offered to meet with the victims’ families. The Committee had regard for the entire post which said: "The Chief Constable of #Nottinghamshire Police is "hiding away behind emails" from the families of those killed in the Nottingham attacks, the son of [a victim] has said. It noted that this was attributed to a son of one of the victims, and who reportedly said "The Chief Constable [named individual] is hiding away behind emails, why can she not just pick up the phone?" in the article linked in the post. In this instance, where “hiding away” was presented in inverted commas which suggested this was a quote, and where the X post attributed this claim to the son, it was not inaccurate for the X post to state the Chief was “'hiding away' from the victims' families […] the son of [a victim] has said”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

36. In regard to the complaint’s concerns that the newspaper had not approached the complainant for comment, the Committee considered whether the publication should have contacted the complainant for comment prior to the publication of the articles as part of the Code’s requirement to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. Firstly, the Committee noted that the publication sent an email on 29 February prior to publication, which made clear it was publishing information from the briefing about prior contact with Mr Calocane and therefore gave the complainant fair warning. The Committee also noted that a right or reply or an obligation to contact the subject of the article prior to publication is not an explicit requirement of Clause 1, though in some circumstances this may play a role in a publication’s requirement to take care over the accuracy of articles. However, where – as noted above – the article did not include any inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information, there was no case to answer under the terms of Clause 1 (i) in relation to the complainant not having been asked for comment prior to publication. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

Conclusions

37. The complaint was not upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 11/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/09/2024