Nottingham Post confirms reporting of police attack

They then added: “Was reported twice for 'stalking' before becoming a murderer. / His roommate twice told police he was stalked by Calocane, who became a murderer within a year.”

And: “Why the Post publishes details from police meetings with confidentiality clauses,” along with the associated social media posts.

Nottinghamshire Police described it as a “secrecy meeting”

Nottinghamshire Police argued that the report that it had asked the newspaper to sign a non-disclosure agreement was inaccurate because no legal document had been created or signed.

However, the publication was able to provide an email it received with the subject line: “Confidentiality meeting with the Chief Constable.”

The email read: “The following confidentiality meeting with the Chief of Police will take place today. You must confirm in writing that you agree that this is a confidentiality meeting. None of the information in this meeting is for reporting purposes.”

“If you do not confirm and accept the above via email, you will not be invited to the meeting.”

In his response, the editor confirmed the participation of a reporter, who in turn sent an email with the content: “Thank you for sending the registration link. I confirm that I will abide by the non-disclosure agreement.”

After the briefing, the editor sent another email asking, “Could you please explain why this briefing was subject to a confidentiality agreement?”

In a follow-up email, the police said: “The reason we cannot discuss some of the information that is publicly available is because it could compromise the independent investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and the review being conducted by the College of Policing.”

In its decision, IPSO stated: “In the circumstances that, as a condition of participation, the publishing house was required to give a written undertaking not to publish the information disclosed at the press conference, the Committee did not consider that describing that agreement in the terms used by the newspaper was materially inaccurate.”

Police denied claims that they were withholding information from the victims' families and the public, arguing that background briefings containing confidential information had long been held – the only difference in this case being the scope and large number of journalists attending.

IPSO stated in its response that the publication was entitled to describe the briefing as “unprecedented”, particularly as it could not recall ever having been required to confirm in writing the terms of a “confidentiality briefing” in the last decade.

“Moreover, this was supported by the complainant's own submissions – that the Nottingham attacks and the high level of media interest were in themselves unprecedented, so he held a large confidential meeting, something he had never done before,” the Complaints Committee said.

Nottinghamshire Police also complained about a post claiming the chief constable was “hiding” from the victims' families, but IPSO said this had been presented as a quote because it came from a son of one of the victims and was therefore not inaccurate.

The police had also complained that it had not been asked for comment. However, IPSO said it had been advised by Nottinghamshire Live that information from the press conference was planned to be published and that it was under no obligation to provide a reply, particularly given that the article “did not contain any inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”.

Editor: “I just knew something was wrong”

Nottinghamshire Police had requested a correction and apology on the front page and online, but the complaint was ultimately rejected.

Natalie Fahy, editor of Nottinghamshire Live, said: “I have been a journalist for nearly 20 years and I just knew there was something wrong with the way we were asked to make a written promise before being allowed to attend this meeting with Nottinghamshire Police.

“We are increasingly seeing various institutions trying to restrict our freedoms as an independent press. And it is important to take a stand when one of them goes too far.

“I hope that no police force will attempt to do this to another news team again and that the communications team and the National Police Chiefs' Council will use this ruling to improve their working practices in the future.”

Read the full IPSO decision here.

e-mail [email protected] to point out errors, give story tips or submit a letter for publication on our blog “Letters Page”