The Nottingham Post has been vindicated after reporting on a controversial “non-disclosable” police briefing regarding a stabbing attack that occurred last year in the city. The briefing was held by Nottinghamshire Police, and the Post covered the story in February and March, revealing that the police had requested that certain information not be disclosed to the public.
The briefing was attended by 35 reporters remotely, under the condition that the information shared was not to be reported. The Post expressed concerns that this was an attempt to prevent them from reporting on the story fully. Despite the police arguing that they did not ask for a non-disclosure agreement to be signed, an email was provided by the publication confirming the non-disclosure briefing with the Chief Constable.
The police justified the non-disclosure by stating that it could potentially interfere with independent investigations being conducted. The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) ruled that the publication was not significantly inaccurate in describing the arrangement as a non-disclosure briefing, considering the conditions set by the police for attendance.
Nottinghamshire Police also took issue with the characterization of the briefing as unprecedented, as they claimed similar off-the-record briefings had been held in the past. However, IPSO supported the Post’s right to use this description, given the scale of the briefing and the level of media interest in the case.
The police also objected to a post suggesting that the Chief Constable was “hiding away” from the victims’ families, but IPSO ruled that this was presented as a quote and therefore not inaccurate. Additionally, the police complained about not being asked for comment before the article was published, but IPSO stated that there was no obligation to provide a right of reply since the information reported was not inaccurate.
Ultimately, the complaint from Nottinghamshire Police was rejected, and the editor of Nottinghamshire Live, Natalie Fahy, expressed concerns about institutions attempting to restrict press freedoms. She stated that it is important to take a stand against such actions and hopes that this ruling will lead to improvements in communication practices between the police and the press in the future.
