Resolution Statement – 03062-25 Parkianathan v Norwich Evening News

Summary of Complaint

1. Nicola Parkianathan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Norwich Evening News breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Doctor who took own life had resigned from director role day before”, published on 11 July 2025; and an article headlined “Family remembers ‘happy soul’ who took his own life”, published on 14 July 2025.

2. The first article – which only appeared in print - reported on the death of the complainant’s husband. It said the senior coroner “recorded a brief narrative conclusion and said that [the complainant’s husband] had died ‘due to a fall from the bridge, but his intent was unknown at the time and may have been impacted by relapsed depression’”.

3. The second article reported on comments made by the complainant’s family following his death. It said the “heartbroken family of a man who took his own life earlier this year have praised his ‘happy soul and positivity’”.

4. The second article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline “Family pay tribute to Rajeeve Parkianathan at coroners court”.

5. The complainant said that both articles were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as they reported her husband had ”taken his own life”. She said the inquest into his death concluded that he died after a fall from a bridge. However, it had also found that his intent was unknown. She said the inquest and Coroner’s Officer had not concluded that her husband had died by suicide.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It said it had never referred to Dr Parkianathan’s death as a suicide, and therefore it did not consider the reference under complaint to be significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted. It said it was heard at court that he was seen looking over the side of the railing before falling to the ground, and there was no indication from the evidence that it was an accident or that any third party was involved. It said the evidence showed that he carried out a physical act that ended his own life. It said the coroner repeatedly said he "jumped" rather than that he was pushed or fell.

7. The publication provided short-hand notes from court, as well as a transcript of the notes. It said having reviewed the reporter’s notes, it noted that the coroner mentioned intent and made it clear Dr Parkianathan did take his own life. However, it considered it had gone “too far” in its reporting. On 21 August, it amended the online article to read: “The heartbroken family of a man who died earlier this year have praised his ‘happy soul and positivity’", and offered to publish a correction in print.

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.

Mediated Outcome 

8. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

9. During IPSO’s investigation the publication agreed to write a private apology to the family and to publish the following correction in print:

“On Thursday, July 10 and Sunday, July 13, we published articles online and in print relating to an inquest held into the death of Dr Rajeeve Parkianathan. The official finding by the coroner was that he died "due to a fall from the bridge, but his intent was unknown at the time and may have been impacted by relapsed depression. After speaking with the family, we would like to make it clear that this was the coroner's official conclusion following the inquest.”

10. The complainant said this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.

11. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 22/07/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/10/2025