00651-25 Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue Norwich, Sheldrake, and Ralph v The Jewish Chronicle

Summary of Complaint

1. Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue Norwich - acting on its own behalf and on behalf of Binyamin Sheldrake and Caroline Ralph – complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Jewish Chronicle breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Synagogue of shame: The converts being coerced and exploited by the British ‘rabbi’ who follows Jesus”, published on 14 February 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on pages eight through eleven – reported on criticism of a Messianic Synagogue. It said, “for aspiring Jewish converts, the bizarre organisation registered as a UK charity has been a source of pain so acute that some have considered suicide. ‘Rabbi Binyamin’ offers the full service: conversions, brit milahs, bar mitzvahs, weddings, burials – even a paid rabbinic internship.”

3. The article quoted a senior researcher based at a research unit which studies religious movements, who reportedly said: “Sheldrake appeared to be a typical ‘charismatic leader’ overseeing a ‘culture of control’. This, she said, included ‘isolating people from their extended family and creating an ‘us and them’ dynamic between the individual and their wider family and community’”; and “[l]eaders create a sense that they are protecting the purity of their community, which means it becomes very insular and leaders are not subject to dissenting or challenging voices.”

4. The article went on to report that, “[a]fter the JC raised concerns with the Charity Commission and the Home Office, government officials opened an investigation into Adat Yeshua, particularly its treatment of [a named] family, whose case potentially breaches sponsorship rules. They also said they were liaising with police over potential breaches of the Modern Slavery Act.”

5. The article also included a comment from the Home Office, below a heading which read “Home Office investigation”. The comment said:

“We are investigating to determine if the organisation has complied with their duties as a sponsor. Sponsoring organisations must meet strict duties and be able to offer genuine vacancies in order to obtain a licence. Where a sponsor fails in those duties, or sponsors workers for non-genuine vacancies we will take action, including revoking their licence.”

6. The article also quoted a spokesperson for The Office of the Chief Rabbi as having said:

“Sadly, it is not uncommon for messianic congregations to present themselves either as a Jewish community or as a natural home for Jews. Doing so is disingenuous and entirely erroneous. Messianic ‘Judaism’ is not in fact Judaism by any recognised definition. The distinction should be straightforward. Any theology which ascribes Divine attributes or insight to Jesus cannot be considered Jewish and should not be recognised as such by any local or national authority.”

7. It then reported that the London Beth Din “confirmed that the Adat Yeshua conversion course is not recognised by any mainstream body. ‘Messianic Judaism bears no relationship to Judaism,’ a spokesman said.” It also reported that Mr Sheldrake’s “Jewish authenticity is highly questionable. Sheldrake’s conversion and ordination were conducted under the now defunct Union of British Messianic Jewish Congregations (UBMJC)”

8. The article then set out the story of a man and his family who were “[n]ot halachically Jewish” but “sought conversion”. It said “impressed by [the man’s] self-taught Jewish knowledge, Sheldrake invited him to join his so-called ‘rabbinic internship’ programme. He promised a steady income for the family while [the man] underwent conversion, followed by ordination from a ‘beth din’”.

9. It then said that, after “spending a week in a quarantine hotel, the family was taken to Sheldrake’s cramped flat on the outskirts of Norwich. There they had to sleep under a single dirty blanket on the floor of his sitting room.” It then said the father of the family “contacted Caroline Ralph, chair of the Adat Yeshua trustees and a benefactor of the charity.” The article then went on to give Ms Ralph’s family background, and identified her father and cousin, who were a politician and a member of the British Royal family, respectively.

10. The article then reported:

“Shortly afterwards, Adat Yeshua put the family up in a bed-and-breakfast. But it would not be for long. Within weeks, they were moved to another congregant’s home where they were squeezed into a box room. […] Despite their hardship, [named individual] and his wife continued to trust the charismatic ‘rabbi’, believing he was a ‘man of God’ and that the obstacles would be overcome.”

11. The article also said that that “Sheldrake pushed [a member of his congregation] to develop money-making schemes for Adat Yeshua, including a failed attempt to secure state funding for a school.”

12. It continued: “Ralph offered the family subsidised accommodation. He paid her £900 in rent for the house – more than his Adat Yeshua salary and the family continued to live hand-to-mouth.” The article described how “under the rabbi’s powerful influence”, “he ignored the caution – even as his financial situation went from bad to worse. [The man] was unable to afford his children’s school uniform and was forced to use food banks. ‘Sheldrake would say that I needed to learn to be humble because I’m Jewish and Jews are proud,’ [he] recalled.” It then said: “During some periods, [the man and his family] were given handouts by Adat Yeshua; £500 in January and February 2022, which dropped to £300 by March and nothing in April. In July 2022, [he] was paid £800 as well as a £500 handout – still less than the promise on the Home Office document, which said Adat Yeshua would pay him £1,371 a month.”

13. The article went on to report that in:

“November 2022, Sheldrake sent a message to an Adat Yeshua group chat demanding everyone write: ‘Yeshua is Lord, and God is my salvation.’ When [named individual] refused, Ralph stepped in, accusing him of being ’inflammatory’. Desperate not to be sacked, he typed: ‘Yeshua is Lord and saviour’ in capital letters. Then came the threats. ‘He said that Jews were deserving of death because they opposed Yeshua,’ [named individual] alleged”.

14. Continuing with the story of the man and his family, the article reported that he took “civil action” and that an “employment tribunal is scheduled for later this month.”

15. The article also said:

“When presented with the allegations made by former members, Sheldrake told the JC that the accounts ‘appear fabricated or exaggerated by individuals with other agendas’. He added: ‘We aim to be a welcoming and friendly place for our community, whilst recognising that concerns may be raised by individuals and we aim to be supportive. We encourage people to seek external help and support where necessary. Everyone in the community participates in the life of the synagogue freely and voluntarily. Many members of the community volunteer their time and effort to keep the synagogue building running, including members of the leadership. Adat Yeshua and the union to which we are affiliated (UBMS) fully ascribe to the broad vision and theology of the global messianic Jewish movement. Our distinctive is the conversionary theology which is an emerging trend within the global movement.’”

16. The article then said that “[d]espite Sheldrake’s assurances that he ‘never lies’ to members and is always ‘welcoming and friendly’, the JC has spoken to several who have described a regime of unpaid labour, financial control and coercive behaviour, including isolation from their families.” It also reported that “former members report being asked to take out loans to help renovate the Adat Yeshua building, change their will to include Adat Yeshua and donate 10 per cent of their income to the organisation.”

17. The article appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline “Synagogue of shame: The converts being coerced and exploited by the British ‘rabbi’ who follows Jesus”.

18. On 20 November 2024 - nearly three months prior to the article’s publication - the newspaper contacted Mr Sheldrake by email and set out the following allegations which it said would be published in the article:

• Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue was being investigated by the Home Office;

• Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue had been accused of operating like a cult, and Mr Sheldrake is a cult leader;

• The Union of British Messianic Synagogues / The Union of British Messianic Jewish Congregations (UBMS /UBMJC) were not recognised in the Jewish community;

• Mr Sheldrake told people they could convert to Judaism with UBMJC/UBMS and said he was a Jewish rabbi;

• Mr Sheldrake has encouraged at least two members - including one on his deathbed - to leave money to Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue in their will. He directed one towards his solicitor;

• Mr Sheldrake coerced members and prospective members to move to Norwich to join Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue;

• Mr Sheldrake isolated members from their families and friends;

• Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue employed members without paying them their agreed salaries;

• Mr Sheldrake encouraged at least one member to take out a sizable loan to fund AY renovations;

19. The publication also relayed the experience of one of its sources to Mr Sheldrake:

“A family from abroad was brought to the UK on a visa you sponsored. The individual was not paid his salary and was reliant on you for food, board, and wage while he worked. The case is being investigated by the Home Office and possibly falls under the modern slavery act.

Source 1 wanted to convert to Judaism after his family lost connection to the religion. You said he would be able to convert in Norwich. It was never made clear that you were not a qualified rabbi, nor a recognised Jew, or that clear that Messianic Judaism was a fringe group with no affiliation to mainstream Judaism. The Home Office document named you as a rabbi and AY as a synagogue. Source 1 was told he would be training to become a rabbi and converting to Judaism. When he arrived, it became clear he would be doing project management and you said he did not need to convert.

You told source 1's family they would have food and board in Norwich when they arrived. However, you did not provide the food you promised.

The family had to sleep on the floor of your house with a dirty blanket. They fell ill and were incredibly stressed.

Source 1 was meant to be paid a monthly salary of £1371. But he never received this payment. He was not initially given a contract which meant he could not open a bank account. He describes having to beg you for money each month. AY then gave him money out of the hardship fund, but not his agreed pay. He is still owed thousands of pounds.

[…]

“When source 1 asked you to pay him what he was due, you told him, "You need to learn to be humble because you're Jewish, and Jews are proud." When source 1 refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah, you cut him out of the leadership group.”The publication set out another Source’s experience, which said he ”encouraged a member to take out a business loan to fund the renovations of your back room into a workshop space for their business project.”

20. The publication provided another source’s allegations which said Mr Sheldrake “encouraged a member to take out a business loan to fund the renovations of [his] back room into a workshop space for their business project.”

21. The publication also contacted Mrs Ralph on 20 November by email, and put the following allegations to her:

• Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue was being investigated by the Home Office;

• Members of Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue have been coerced into moving to Norwich;

• Members of Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue have rented living accommodation from Ms Ralph whilst it was failing to pay them;

• Individuals worked for Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue but never received payment;

• Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue leadership have controlled members correspondence with friends and family, isolating them from those outside the community;

• Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue leadership forced members to pledge that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.

22. Four days after being contacted by the newspaper, on 24 November, Mr Sheldrake responded to its email. Regarding the allegation about an investigation by the home office, he said: “We are unaware of any investigation and have not been approached by the Home Office.” In regard to the allegations regarding the cult, he said “I do not recognise this representation of my leadership or the implicit characterisation of our community”.

23. Turning to conversion and ordination, he agreed with the publication that UBMJC/UBMS were not recognised in the Jewish community, and said he converted to Messianic Judaism and was ordained under the auspices of the Messianic Jewish Din. He added that he was a Messianic Jewish Rabbi and it was made clear to people who wanted to convert that they will be converting to Messianic Judaism.

24. In response to claims that he had encouraged members to leave money on their deathbed, he said: “This is untrue and deliberately misleading. On both occasions, the individuals approached me proactively as they wished to leave a legacy to the charity.” In response the allegation he had isolated members from their families and friends, he said this was untrue.

25. He added that the following allegations were untrue: Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue employed members without paying them their agreed salaries; that he encouraged at least one member to take out a sizable loan to fund AY renovations; and that he made statements against the Jewish community in Norwich;. He also said he had “no memory” of praying for Jews to find Jesus, or of condemning Jews for not agreeing with Messianic thought.

26. Responding to the source’s narrative, Mr Sheldrake said he rejected it.

27. In regard to encouraging a member to take out a business loan to fund the renovations of the back room, he said he refuted this allegation and that the Messianic Synagogue “allowed this person to use the back room rent free until such time as the Synagogue was able to move forward with plans for foodbank use. This was made clear to the individual from the start of discussions about the use of the space.”

28. Mr Sheldrake also provided a comment for publication, and a note to the editor which set out the theology of the Messianic Synagogue.

29. On 24 November, Mrs Ralph responded to the publication and said she offered subsidised accommodation to one of the synagogue's Rabbinic Interns and his family, who was supported financially by the Messianic Synagogue.

30. On 3 February the publication put the following claim to Mrs Ralph: “In November 2022, Mr Sheldrake sent a message to an Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue group chat demanding everyone write: ‘Yeshua is Lord, and God and is my salvation.’ When a member refused, you accused that member of being "inflammatory". Desperate not to be sacked, the member typed ‘Yeshua is Lord and saviour’ in capital letters. The member felt coerced.”

31. On 3 February, Mr Sheldrake responded:

“[It}t would appear from your correspondence that [named individual] has spun the narrative that he is ‘merely’ a member of Adat Yeshua community. In fact, [named individual] came to Adat Yeshua in 2021 to study with me as a Messianic Jewish Rabbinic Intern under a training (not an employment) contract. As part of his role in this capacity, he was required to operate within the synagogue leadership team. […] This was the basis upon which [named individual] obtained his visa sponsorship and so his claims to you suggesting otherwise are disingenuous and concerning.”

32. The complainant complained to IPSO on 14 February 2025. It said the article breached Clause 1 as the article featured a named individual who it said joined the synagogue for the purpose of conversion to Judaism. It said this was inaccurate as he never applied to the conversion programme. Rather, he had been accepted on to its Rabbinic training programme. The complainant further said that there were discrepancies between what the individual had said to the publication about his beliefs and what he expressed to the complainant. It said it had not been aware that the individual was not a Messianic Jew, and that he would never have been accepted on the Rabbinic Training Course or received visa sponsorship from the UBMS. The complainant said the newspaper was informed of the conflicting information prior to publication.

33. The complainant said the article claimed the individual was promised a “steady income” for the family while he underwent conversion. However, the messianic synagogue does not pay for people undergoing conversion, and it had not made any promise to this effect to the man.

34. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate regarding the payments the named individual received. It said it could not disclose the amounts he had received due to data protection, however it said he had received a five-digit figure, as well as private donations from members of the community.

35. The complainant said no evidence was presented in the article to support the headline’s claim that the synagogue engaged in coercion and exploitation. It said the article reported on several individuals who described a regime of financial control and coercive behaviour, including isolation from their families. The complainant acknowledged that multiple individuals may have described a regime of financial control and coercive behaviour, including isolation from their families - however, it refuted all such statements. It said it had never been under attack from the named individuals online.

36. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to claim the tribunal was scheduled for February.

37. It then said it was inaccurate to claim that Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue guaranteed to provide the family with accommodation upon arrival in the UK. It said no arrangement or guarantee of this nature had been made to the man and his family. However, the community had assisted the family with their accommodation needs, both financially and opening their homes to the family. It therefore said it was inaccurate to claim the family were forced to “sleep under a single dirty blanket on the floor” of Mr Sheldrake’s flat. It said a double bed with fresh linen was provided, and also a sofa bed for the children.

38. It also said it was inaccurate to report that the man had been expected to “secure state funding for a school”, or that Mr Sheldrake had “pushed” him to develop money-making schemes for the Synagogue. It said the man had independently made plans for how to make money, and he asked for permission to work on his plans - which was permitted by the Messianic Synagogue, though it had declined to be formally involved.

39. It also disputed that Mr Sheldrake had said that the man “needed to learn to be humble because [he’s] Jewish and Jews are proud”, or that he had said “that Jews were deserving of death because they opposed Yeshua”.

40. It said it was also inaccurate to report claims from a former member that she was asked to “take out loans to help renovate the Adat Yeshua building”. It said the individual in question was permitted to use the synagogue premises for her own business free of charge and on a temporary basis.

41. The complainant said it was misleading to quote a researcher who had not been in contact with the congregation or Mr Sheldrake. It said the researcher was clearly commenting on the inaccurate and misleading description given by the named individual.

42. The complainant also noted that the article claimed the reporter had raised concerns with the Charity Commission and the Home Office and that – as a result of these concerns – government officials opened an investigation into Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue. It also said the article heading “Home Office investigation” and quotes from the Home Office describing general procedures for investigating sponsorship failures suggested the Synagogue was breaking the law. However, it said neither the synagogue nor its officers had been contacted by the Home Office, Charity Commission or the Police regarding any investigation, and these complainants had not been found guilty of any crime or misconduct.

43. It also said that the article was inaccurate as it contained personal opinions, such as naming Adat Yeshua a “bizarre organisation” and saying the named individual was under Mr Sheldrake’s “powerful influence”.

44. The complainant said Mrs Ralph was not the Chair of Trustees in 2021 – which was when the majority of the events detailed in the article had occurred - and that the article implied that Mrs Ralph did not fulfil her duties as a Trustee in 2021.

45. The complainant also said the article gave the misleading impression Mr Sheldrake’s conversion and ordination were invalid as the UBMJC no longer existed.

46. The complainant also refuted any suggestions that the source referenced in the article was a victim of modern slavery.

47. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 2 as it included details regarding Mrs Ralph’s family connections.

48. The complainant also alleged the article breached Clause 12 as it referred to the synagogue as a church. It also said that, when it was referred to as a synagogue, this description was placed within quotation marks. It added that the article referred to Mr Sheldrake as rabbi within quotation marks. It said Messianic Jews were often discriminated against by other Jewish denominations, being labelled as Christians and that indicating that the rabbis were not actual rabbis was prejudicial.

49. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It first said it had put all the accusations within the article to Mr Sheldrake, who had the full opportunity to respond to them. It said it had included his responses in the article, but nevertheless stood by the allegations it had reported - which was based on extensive interviews with the multiple sources.

50. Turning to the specific claim in the article, the publication said it had put to the complainant that its source had moved to Norwich and joined the messianic synagogue under the belief he was going to convert to Judaism; this had not been disputed by the complainant. It said it was only once they arrived in the UK, that they understood Mr Sheldrake did not need them to convert. It said other sources it spoke to also moved to Norwich for the purpose of conversion.

51. To support its position, the publication provided the interview notes with the man in question. These stated: “Originally thought we were going to convert, but then we came here and it was the internship, not conversion, that Andrew wanted me to do”; and “wanted to learn Hebrew and convert”.

52. The publication said the man had been promised a steady income, and provided a contract signed by the individual, which stated the role was “Rabbinic intern” and that the gross salary in pound sterling was “1371.00”. It said this figure was put to Mr Sheldrake prior to publication, and that it said it had seen a record of payments to the man.

53. With regard to the claims about coercion and exploitation, the publication disputed that the headline and article were inaccurate or distorted. It said it based the headline on a lengthy investigation, during which it had spoken to two families, a couple and an individual who had all had contact with the Messianic Synagogue. It said one of these individuals’ cases had been accepted by the Modern Slavery charity as an example of modern-day slavery. It added that it considered the leadership of Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue had coerced members to state they believed in Yeshua. It said the individual was told he would be paid and then not paid the amount stated.

54. The publication provided screenshots of the WhatsApp conversation to support the article’s claim that the individual had felt coerced into declaring ‘Yeshua is Lord and saviour’ as described in the article. Mr Sheldrake had sent a message which said “I believe utterly to my last breath that Yeshua is Lord, and God is my salvation” and another which said “Each leader please repeat that for us to see”. When the man explained why he would not write the statement, Mrs Ralph said “You have no idea of the inflammatory nature and power of your won words”. The man responded, “HE IS THE SAVIOUR AND HE IS MY GOD”.

55. Turning to the tribunal, the publication said it was originally scheduled for December 10, then rescheduled for February 11, before ultimately being rescheduled for March. It said, at the time of writing the article the meeting was set for February. However, it said it was willing to amend the online version of the article to make the timing clearer.

56. In response to the article’s claim regarding the conditions of the accommodation, the publication said it put this claim to Mr Sheldrake, which he had denied. To support its position on this point, it provided interview notes which said: “1 week Sheldrake living room floor, living off savings, told Cary Ralph this isn’t acceptable”; and “Four in living room of single bed flat we never had blankets, we asked for them. They gave us one dirty blanket”.

57. In regard to the article’s claims about state-funding and money-making schemes, the publication provided interview notes to support its reporting on these points. These said: “I never had job Dec-Jan, I was made to do construction with him son-in-law at leader’s house / Never been paid / Work involved shoving bricks in cold outside, stones and sand on the grass to help them build a lawn”. The notes also said: “Thinking of projects to generate income, including building Hydroponics plant in Norfolk […] Set up an FE college to generate revenue from state”.

58. The publication said that the claims made in the article relating to members of the congregation working without payment was put to Mr Sheldrake, who had the opportunity to deny these claims prior to publication. However, he had only said he “reject[ed] the narrative” without specifying how this was the case.

59. The publication next turned to the article’s claims that Mr Sheldrake had said the man “needed to learn to be humble because [he’s] Jewish and Jews are proud” and had said “that Jews were deserving of death because they opposed Yeshua”. The publication provided interview notes which said: “He turned against Jews / Jews are proud / Jews deserving of death if opposed Yeshua”. The publication said the first claim was put to the complainant; however, it accepted it had not asked any of the complainants whether Mr Sheldrake had said “that Jews were deserving of death because they opposed Yeshua”. However, it said other quotes which suggested a similar attitude were put to him.

60. In regard to the various investigations, targeting the complainant and referenced in the article, the publication said they were not yet complete, and therefore no outcome was available. It added that the article did not state that Mrs Ralph was a trustee in 2021, or when she had become one. Rather, it simply referred to her as the chair of the trustees, as she was at the time of the article’s publication.

61. It also said the quote from the Office of the Chief Rabbi was published to illustrate its position regarding Messianic Judaism. At any rate, the publication said the article included Mr Sheldrake’s rebuttal on this point.

62. The publication said that the article’s reference to Mrs Ralph’s family connections was not an intrusion into her privacy. It said her identity as the chair of trustees was a matter of public record, as were her family links – which had been referenced previously in the press. The publication provided various articles to demonstrate this.

63. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 12. It said its audience was predominantly Jewish and had a particular understanding of the word rabbi - someone who is ordained by a mainstream Jewish organisation, whether Orthodox or Progressive. Given this, it did not accept the references to the complainant or Mr Sheldrake were discriminatory.

64. The complainant said there was no written evidence to support the claim of the man quoted in the article, who had said he was joining a conversion programme. It said this was because there was no such evidence, and that there had never been any discussion of him converting because he represented himself as a Messianic Jew repeatedly. The complainant provided the named individual’s application form which it said highlighted his Jewish identity and his involvement with the Messianic Jewish movement in India and there was no request to convert mentioned. It also said that, in his visa application to the Home Office, he had identified himself as a Messianic Jewish believer and as having been accepted to the Rabbinic Internship. The complainant provided an email of December 2020 which confirmed the individual had a place on the “Rabbinic Intern programme”.

65. The complainant reiterated that the named individual’s contract was a training contract and not a contract of employment, and provided the contract in question. It said the man was fully aware of the unpaid nature of the training position, and confirmed this in writing and email correspondence prior to his travel to the UK. It also provided a WhatsApp chat with the man where it sent an excerpt of what appeared to be a contract. On this it said, “Interns are non-remunerated”.

66. However, it said it had later become aware that, due to the terms of the visa, it had received legal advice that the man would need to be paid to ensure compliance with the terms of the visa. It had therefore paid the man at the living wage rate after receiving this advice. It said it received a donation for the purpose of paying one of the rabbinic interns and - given the individual’s situation - it decided to pay him. In July 2022, he therefore signed a separate 12-month contract which set out he would work 2 days a week, and be paid £800 per month. It therefore accepted that in 2022, for a period of 12 months, it had promised the individual a steady income – and said it paid all he was due under that contract.

67. The publication said there was a Modern Day Slavery Act case and quoted the case number. It also provided a Home Office email noting it was looking into Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue. However, it said that - on re-checking the Home Office email - it realised it had made an error claiming this organisation had involved the police. It simply said it would involve them if appropriate.

68. On 15 September, seven days after the publication had been made aware of the complainant’s further concerns, it said it would correct the above error. On 21 September it said it had removed the reference from the article and published the following online footnote correction:

“An earlier version of this article said the Home Office was liaising with police over potential breaches of the Modern Slavery Act. In fact, the Home Office told us they would liaise with police ‘if appropriate.’ We apologise for this error.”

The publication also confirmed on 30 September it would publish a print version on its letters page - where it said it always ran its corrections and clarifications. It published the following correction in print on 24 October. It said:

“An article headlined Synagogue of shame: The converts being coerced and exploited by the British ‘rabbi’ who follows Jesus about the Adat Yeshua messianic congregation in Norwich which appeared in the JC on February 14, 2025 said the Home Office was liaising with police over potential breaches of the Modern Slavery Act. In fact, the Home Office told us it would liaise with police ‘if appropriate’. We apologise for this error.”

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.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Clause 12 (Discrimination)

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Findings of the Committee

69. The Committee first considered the complainant’s concern that the article was inaccurate as the named individual never applied to the conversion programme and was in fact aware he was applying for a rabbinic internship for Messianic Judaism. It also considered the complainant’s concern that the article suggested the named individual was a victim of modern slavery. The Committee noted that these points of complaint related to the welfare and religious beliefs of an individual who was third-party to the complaint. It further noted that, to rule on the complaint, the Committee would be required to decide whether the article accurately reported on the man’s reasons for emigrating, what he understood the role at the Messianic Synagogue to be, and whether he was a victim of modern slavery. It further noted that the man in question was not a party to the complaint.

70. Given this, and absent of the man’s input and consent, the Committee did not consider that it would be feasible or appropriate to rule on this aspect of complaint. As such, the Committee declined to consider these aspects of the complaint.

71. In regard to the claim that the individual was promised a “steady income”, the Committee noted that there was some dispute between the parties on this issue, and that this was the subject of proceedings in the employment tribunal. However, the Committee noted that the visa application stated he would be paid monthly. The complainant also accepted that legal advice confirmed that the individual needed to be paid. As such, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate for the article to claim that he was promised a steady income. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

72. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate regarding the payments the named individual had received. The Committee noted that the article referred to “handouts” which had been given to the individual, by which it made clear that the individual had received certain sums. The article also did not claim that the reported sums were an exhaustive list of the money which the complainant had received. As such the Committee did not consider the article was inaccurate on this point.

73. Next, the Committee considered the complainant’s position that no evidence in the article supported the headline’s claims of coercion and exploitation. The Committee noted that the publication had provided extensive testimony from individuals involved in the synagogue, who described conduct which the publication could reasonably describe as amounting to coercion and exploitation. The Committee also noted that the complainant accepted that the individuals may have made these comments, and did not allege that any of the sources had been inaccurately quoted. The article also made clear that the complainants disputed the allegations made against them. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the text of the article supported the headline, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

74. In regard to the article’s claim that the tribunal hearing was scheduled for February, the Committee noted that the hearing had been scheduled to begin in February at the time of the article’s publication. As such, the Committee did not consider the article was inaccurate on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

75. Regarding the alleged inaccuracy that the complainant had guaranteed it would provide the family with accommodation upon arrival in the UK, the Committee noted that the article did not claim this. Rather, it said the family had been offered subsidised accommodation. Given the complainant did not appear to dispute that this was the case, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

76. The Committee next considered the article’s claim that the family were forced to “sleep under a single dirty blanket on the floor”; the claim the man was expected to “secure state funding for a school” and that Mr Sheldrake “pushed” the named individual to develop money-making schemes for the Messianic Synagogue.

77. The publication had provided interview notes from the individual which described his living conditions and referred to “[t]hinking of projects to generate income, including building Hydroponics plant in Norfolk”. They also said: “Set up an FE college to generate revenue from state”. The Committee was satisfied the claims were presented as the individual’s account and therefore that they were appropriately distinguished as his position on the matters. The publication had also provided interview notes which demonstrated that the individual had made these claims during his interview with the newspaper. Where they were distinguished in the article as the individual’s account and Mr Sheldrake’s position that “the accounts ‘appear fabricated or exaggerated by individuals with other agendas’” was also made clear, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

78. The Committee noted that the complainant disputed that Mr Sheldrake had said that an individual “needed to learn to be humble because [he’s] Jewish and Jews are proud” and that “Jews were deserving of death because they opposed Yeshua”. The Committee noted that both of these claims appeared within the publication’s interview notes with the individuals, and that the first quote had been put to the complainant prior to publication of the article. The article also included Mr Sheldrake’s position that the reported accounts appeared to be fabricated and exaggerated by individuals. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the publication had taken care over the accuracy of the claim contained in the first quote: it had put it to the complainant for comment prior to publication of the article, included the fact that Mr Sheldrake had challenged the accuracy of the accounts in the article, and had presented the claim as the man’s account of what had been said. The first of the quotes did not give rise to a breach of Clause 1 in these circumstances.

79. However, the Committee noted that the second quote had not been put to the complainant prior to publication of the article. While this was presented as the individual’s account of what had been said by Mr Sheldrake, the Committee noted that this was a serious claim and to report it without giving him an opportunity to comment on the allegation represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

80. The Committee considered that in circumstances where the claim had not been put to Mr Sheldrake specifically, the article was inaccurate as it gave the impression that the comments he had provided included his response to this specific allegation when in fact, he was unaware of any such allegation against him. This was a significant inaccuracy given the seriousness of the allegation. As such, the reference required correcting. Where the publication had not offered any correction, there was a further breach of Clause 1 (ii).

81. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concern that it was inaccurate to claim a former member had claimed that she was asked to “take out loans to help renovate the Adat Yeshua building”. While the Committee noted the publication had not provided the notes from this source, it did provide the email where the journalist detailed the source’s account. In this instance, the claim was presented as the individual’s account and had been put to the complainant for rebuttal prior to the article’s publication. The article had also included the complainant’s position, which was that he disputed this allegation. As such, the Committee was content the article had accurately reported on the source’s position and distinguished it as such. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

82. The Committee then considered whether the article breached Clause 1 by quoting from a researcher. It noted that the researcher’s comments were clearly distinguished as comment, by way of being attributed to the researcher and qualified with phrases such as “appeared to be”. In such circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the researcher’s comments were distinguished as her subjective opinion in response to the accounts included in the article and were not presented as fact. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

83. The complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that concerns had been raised by the publication with the Home Office and Charity Commission. However, the Committee noted that the complainant was not in a position to know whether the reporter had raised concerns with various institutions, and at any rate it did not appear to be in dispute that these organisations were aware of concerns about the complainants. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

84. The complainant had said the article suggested the Synagogue was breaking the law, as it included a statement from the Home Office and the heading “Home Office investigation”. The Committee noted the Home Office’s statement did not claim that the complainant had been found guilty of any offences. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

85. The Committee turned to the article’s reference to Adat Yeshua Messianic Synagogue as a “bizarre organisation” and Mr Sheldrake’s “powerful influence”. The article set out the basis for these comments by providing accounts of when Mr Sheldrake had been seen to be influential: he allegedly “pushed [a member of his congregation] to develop money-making schemes for Adat Yeshua, including a failed attempt to secure state funding for a school.” The article also set out the London Beth Din’s position, which was that the conversion course was not recognised by any mainstream body and that “Messianic Judaism bears no relationship to Judaism”. The Committee considered that that these statements were presented as subjective characterisations of the Synagogue and the Mr Sheldrake’s influence, and in circumstances where the article had provided sufficient basis for the characterisations, there was no breach of Clause 1.

86. The Committee noted that the article did not claim that Mrs Ralph was a trustee in 2021. The Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate to refer to Mrs Ralph as a “trustee”, given – at the time of the article’s publication – she was a trustee of the organisation. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

87. In regard to the complainant’s concern that the article gave the misleading impression Mr Sheldrake’s conversion and ordination were invalid, the Committee noted that the article did not state Mr Sheldrake’s ordination and conversion were not valid, but that UBMJC – the organisation that oversaw this process – was defunct. As such the Committee did not consider that the article was misleading on this point in the way complained of by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1.

88. The Committee noted that during IPSO’s investigation, the publication had identified an inaccuracy in its reporting, as the article had claimed that the Home Office was liaising with police over potential breaches of the Modern Slavery Act. As the complainant did not complain that the article was inaccurate on this point, the Committee did not consider whether this represented a breach of the Code. However, the Committee welcomed the action taken by the publication to proactively correct potentially inaccurate information it had identified during the IPSO process.

89. The Committee turned to the complaint under Clause 2. The Committee considered that Mrs Ralph’s family connections – which the complainant had said were private and should not have been referenced - were in the public domain. Taking this into account, the Committee was satisfied that publishing this information did not represent an intrusion into Mrs Ralph’s private and family life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

90. Finally, the Committee considered the complainant’s position that the article’s references to the synagogue breached Clause 12. The Committee appreciated that the complainant considered these references prejudicial, however Clause 12 protects individuals from discrimination, rather than organisations or buildings. There was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

91. The Committee next considered whether referring to Mr Sheldrake as a “rabbi” within quotation marks breached Clause 12. Where it was accepted this was how Mr Sheldrake referred to himself, it did not consider referring to him as such represented a pejorative or prejudicial reference to his religion.

92. While the Committee was not in a position to adjudicate on matters of faith, it also noted the context of the article: it was written by a Jewish publication, aimed at a mainstream Jewish audience, and was reporting on allegations that the complainants had misrepresented the nature of their religion. In such a context, the Committee considered that the use of the quotation marks around the word “rabbi” were not pejorative, and rather served to distinguish Mr Sheldrake’s religious practices from mainstream Judaism. There was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

Conclusions

93. The complaint was upheld in part under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

94. Having partly upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

95. The Committee noted the article alleged Mr Sheldrake had said “Jews were deserving of death because they opposed Yeshua” which he disputed. The publication had been able to provide notes from the named individual’s interview to support this claim. It had further included the complainant’s position that he considered the individual’s accounts to “appear fabricated or exaggerated by individuals with other agendas within the article”. The Committee considered the newspaper had taken some care over the accuracy of this reference – albeit not to a level sufficient to ensure compliance with Clause 1 (i) – and therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge Mr Sheldrake disputes having said “Jews were deserving of death because they opposed Yeshua”.

96. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. The correction should be published in the publication’s letters page – the usual location where it publishes corrections and clarifications given this is where readers would know where to find corrections.

97. If the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline, giving it greater prominence and ensuring that readers are appraised of the correct position ahead of reading the unamended article.

98. If the article is amended, the existing footnote correction should be amended to correct the record as set out above.

99. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 18/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/03/2026