Union 'disturbed' by Nottinghamshire Police's actions after city killings

The scandal-hit police force, which is in special measures, has been urged to learn lessons

Nottinghamshire Police's actions following the killings of three people in Nottingham last year have been described as 'disturbing' by a union. Last month the press watchdog upheld Nottinghamshire Live's right to say journalists had been asked in February to sign a non-disclosure agreement before a police briefing that revealed Valdo Calocane had been reported for stalking twice before stabbing Barnaby Webber, 19, Grace O'Malley-Kumar, 19, and Ian Coates, 65, on June 13, 2023.

Nottinghamshire Police had complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) that it was inaccurate to refer to the arrangement as a non-disclosure agreement, but this complaint was not upheld following a four-month long investigation. The force's decision to unsuccessfully complain about coverage of its contact with Calocane drew heavy criticism from the families of slain Barnaby, Grace and Ian, and it has now been urged to learn lessons from the ruling by the Nottingham branch of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ).

In a letter to Nottinghamshire Live, the union branch said it found the use of the non-disclosure briefing unsettling and praised the publication of details from the briefing. "We were disturbed to learn in February of Nottinghamshire Police’s attempt to use a 'non disclosure briefing' to prevent reporting of information vital to the public’s understanding both of the case itself, and, crucially, the many interactions between Valdo Calocane, the police, and local mental health services in the months and years prior to the attacks.

"Unequivocally, a fact backed up by IPSO’s ruling, it was in the interest of the people of Nottingham and the grief-stricken families of the victims of the Nottingham attacks to make that information known." The union also labelled ISPO's verdict on the complaint a "victory for freedom of the press".

The NUJ's letter continued: "Journalists serve a number of vital functions in a democracy, not least in holding public servants, politicians, and powerful people to account. If journalists and media outlets are prevented from reporting information in the public interest, the public suffers.

"We thank you for fighting for the principle of press freedom, and hope that lessons will be learnt from this incident. Above all, serving and protecting the public must be the top priority for everyone in the privileged position to do so, public servants, officials, political representatives and the free press alike."

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, 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." Clause 1 of IPSO's The Editors’ Code of Practice requires publishers to not publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.