Nottinghamshire Police branded 'disgusting' and told to 'hold hands up' as new complaint made

Senior figures at the scandal-hit force have been told to "hold your hands up" and admit their mistakes

Nottinghamshire Police has been blasted over a "disgusting" choice that has taken grieving families "back to anger" after last year's Nottingham attacks. The sons of Ian Coates, 65, and the father of Grace O'Malley-Kumar, 19, who were killed in the city by Valdo Calocane in June 2023, have heavily criticised the force after it made an unsuccessful complaint against parts of Nottinghamshire Live's coverage.

Earlier this week, Emma Webber, whose 19-year-old son Barnaby was fatally stabbed by Calocane before he killed Grace and Ian, called for Chief Constable Kate Meynell to resign after the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) ruled Nottinghamshire Live had the right to say reporters had been asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement - something that the force has denied. During this briefing, which was attended by Nottinghamshire Live and other media outlets, it was revealed Calocane had been reported for stalking twice before his killing spree.

Now James and Lee Coates, the sons of Ian, and Dr Sanjoy Kumar, Grace's dad, have lambasted the force's conduct and subsequent failed complaint, which they had not been informed about by police. "It's disgusting behavior to me. Hold your hands up and admit you've done something wrong, don't double down and dig a hole for yourself," James said.

Mr Coates said he had no issues with police officers in general, but thought senior officers had to be held accountable. "It's certain individuals, and I am hoping at some point they will be named and be accountable. The main thing is that they need to be made to learn from these mistakes so it doesn't happen to someone else."

James' brother Lee reiterated the call for the Chief Constable to leave her role, but expressed his belief that she should be dismissed rather than be allowed to resign. "I am not asking for her resignation, I am asking for her to be sacked.

"I do not know how she sleeps at night," he said, referencing the potential missed chances and lack of communication with the victims' families. Lee, whose father had been a school caretaker well-known to generations of Nottingham pupils, said the force was failing to serve the "great city".

"We have a great city and people that come from all walks of life, but the police are letting us down," he added. "The way they have worked has made it all raw and taken me back to the anger part of grieving again."

Lee added the force, which he said "will do anything to protect themselves", had wasted valuable time and resources trying to do so. This sentiment was echoed by Dr Kumar, who said the force had failed in its duty to tell the families about its use of their loved ones in its complaint to IPSO.

He has written a letter to His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, which inspects police forces in England and Wales, and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to express his concerns about Nottinghamshire Police's rebuffed complaint. Dr Kumar said: "This is a force that is not learning lessons, they are not transparent. If anything they are increasing the opacity and acting like bullies.

"Why are they spending time and resources on work that isn't in the public interest. They can only justify it by saying it is about maintaining public confidence - but in fact this has shattered that even more.

"I don't think they are serving the taxpayer by taking action like this. This is a scandalous case, and the police are not serving the people of Nottingham at all, there has been blunder after blunder and this is another."

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which is overseeing the investigation into the force's possible failings before and after the three killings on June 13 last year, recently confirmed it is looking into the force's decision to hold the media briefing in February due to relatives' complaints. A spokesperson for Nottinghamshire Police said: “On the advice of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, we held a non-reportable briefing for the media following the Nottingham attacks in June 2023. These briefings are standard practice, facilitated by the NPCC and are held to help and inform media with their reporting.

"At no point did we ask any media organisation to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which is a legally binding document. Despite being disappointed with the findings, we have decided not to appeal the decision. We remain fully committed to the IOPC investigation and it would not be appropriate to comment any further until this has been completed.”

The spokesman also claimed that at no point did Nottinghamshire Police ask any media organisation to sign a non-disclosure agreement, saying that an NDA is a legally binding document. The spokesman claimed that watchdog IPSO acknowledged this in their findings. In fact, IPSO's findings on this point were as follows:

"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."