05149-24 Rocha v The Jewish Chronicle

Summary of Complaint

1. Micaela Rocha 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 “Met police detective lobbied university to boycott Israel / Cop demanded uni cut ties with ‘criminal’ Israel”, published on 5 July 2024, and an article headlined “Met has shown it can act – now do it again”, published on 4 July 2024.

2. The first article under complaint – which began on the front-page, before continuing on to page 2 – included a sub-heading, which reported that the complainant “led calls for action against two leading universities”. The sub-heading also named the London boroughs where the complainant, a police officer, had been posted.

3. The article went on to report that the complainant “asked students at the Yenching Academy of Peking University […] to sign a letter asking the institution to sever ties with the Jewish state.” It then reported:

“Writing in a group on WeChat […], Rocha said: ‘Good morning fellow students. This is the final version of the letter directed towards the Yenching Executive Board on our concerns regarding the upholding of partnerships with Israel institutions.

“‘In this letter we request Yenching to reconsider its position and sever ties with its Israeli partners due to the ongoing crimes being committed in Gaza.

“’We kindly ask you to read this letter and sign it if you support this cause. We are so happy to have received support from fellow students to sign this letter and our concerns.’”

4. The article also said, “[a]fter the JC contacted the Met over the comments, a spokesman said the matter had been referred to the Professional Standards Unit and was pending investigation. Under police regulations, officers are not permitted to engage in any form of political activity other than standing for election to a parish council.”

5. The article also reported the following comment from a “Met spokesman”:

“We are now aware of the comments alleged to have been posted on a WeChat group by a serving Met Officer. The officer, previously attached to [Police Unit] covering [two London boroughs], is currently on a career break since 2023. This matter has been referred to the Professional Standards Unit, who will investigate the comments in line with the officer’s current position. We would like to remind all officers that they are expected to remain politically neutral while performing as a serving police officer.”

6. It then reported that the complainant “did not respond to a request from the JC for comment”.

7. The article was accompanied by a picture of the complainant. The picture showed the complainant’s head and shoulders.

8. The article also reported that the complainant had been “described by Yenching Academy as ‘a Portuguese national living in the UK’”.

9. The article also appeared online, under the headline “Detective from Metropolitan police lobbied university to boycott Israel”; this version of the article was published on 3 July 2024.

10. A link to the first article under complaint also appeared on the publication’s X page. The post said: “Detective from Metropolitan police lobbied university to boycott Israel”.

11. The second article under complaint was a leader column, setting out the publication’s comment on the first article under complaint. It reported that there had been an “attempt by Met detective Micaela Rocha to get her fellow students to demand that the institution sever all ties with Israel over its supposed ‘genocide’ in Gaza.” It also said “[i]t is troubling that a serving police officer – even while absent from duties – should be involved in such a highly political campaign, and in spreading such malicious falsehoods.”

12. Prior to both articles’ publication, on 20 June, a reporter sent the following email to the press office of the Metropolitan Police:

“Hi,

The Jewish Chronicle is to report that a serving Metropolitan Police Detective Constable has broken police rules on political impartiality by lobbying a Chinese university to boycott Israel. Micaela Rocha wrote an open letter (text copied below) accusing Israel of “genocide” and calling for Yenching Academy to end all collaboration with Israeli universities.

Is this permissible under Met Police rules? As I understand it officers are barred from any political activity. Please let me know by 5pm on Friday 21 June if you wish to respond to this story. You can reach me at [phone number] to discuss it.”

13. The following letter accompanied the above email:

“We, current students and alumni of Yenching Academy of Peking University, are writing this joint statement to express our concerns over the ongoing invasion, occupation, mass murder, apartheid, and genocide of the Palestinian people by the State of Israel and the continuation of YCA´s institutional ties with Israeli institutions.

“The Israeli invasion of Gaza has resulted in the indiscriminate killings of 35,000 Palestinian, men, women, and children. Israeli bombing efforts have also recently targeted knowledge institutions in Palestine, such as Al-Azhar university in Gaza (which has been completely destroyed). There are no Universities nor libraries left in Gaza due to the State of Israel’s criminal actions. As a knowledge center, Yenching Academy cannot remain silent against such acts of educide. Thus, we ask you to also think of this letter as a call for the maintenance of international education and peace.

“The Yenching Academy prides itself on an educational environment that cultivates critical minds through engaging with critical histories and global inequalities. We believe continuing partnerships with Israeli institutions participating in war crimes and genocide would directly violate Yenching Academy’s values.

“Therefore:

• “We call on Yenching Academy to terminate all collaboration with Israeli Institutions. These include its partnerships with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Reichmann University. Both universities have expressed staunch support for the criminal IDF and are explicitly involved in the continuation of Israeli colonization, narratives of Palestinian dehumanization. This is demonstrated in the statements made by the CEO and Vice-President of Reichmann’s University who shamelessly boast about the DNA of the University being “Zionist.” Reichmann University has also explicitly stated that it is actively taking part in “Community Mobilization in Operation Iron Sword,” i.e Israel's illegal war in Gaza. This can be found in the main page of the University. It is thus the obligation of Yenching students, alumni and staff to acknowledge and address Yenching Academy’s complicity in human rights violations through partnerships with Israeli institutions.

• “We request Yenching Academy's commitment to refrain from future cooperation with Israeli research centers and institutions until Palestinian statehood is respected and Israeli leaders and other participants in genocide are brought to justice for their war crimes.

“With humility and sincerity,

Students of Yenching Academy”

14. On 24 June, the press office provided a statement for publication, which appeared in the first article under complaint.

15. On 24 June, the following message was sent to the complainant, via Facebook, by a reporter working on behalf of the publication:

“Dear Ms Rocha,

The Jewish Chronicle is to report that you are being investigated by the Metropolitan Police’s Professional Standards Unit over comments posted on a WeChat group chat in which you asked other students to sign a letter calling on the Yenching Academy of Peking University to boycott Israeli institutions.

We will write that in June 2024 you shared the letter, which accuses Israel of genocide and calls on Yenching Academy to ‘terminate all collaboration with Israeli institutions’ including the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Reichmann University. We will write that this appears to breach UK police regulations which state officers must not engage in any political activity.

We will also note that you are a Portuguese national, that you have been a Detective Constable in the Met since 2020, that you have been on a career break from this role since 2023, and that you have been studying for a master's degree in China Studies at the Yenching Academy since September 2022.

Please let me know if you wish to respond to any of these points by 2pm tomorrow (Tuesday 25 June). You can reach me at [email address]. “

16. During IPSO’s investigation into the first article under complaint, the complainant also raised concerns about the second article under complaint. As the complainant first complained about this article over four months after its initial publication – in line with its regulations – IPSO only considered the online version of the article.

17. The complainant said that both articles were misleading in breach of Clause 1; she said she had not “led calls for action” nor had she “demand[ed] that the institution sever all ties with Israel”. Rather, she said she had forwarded a message written by another student – and accompanying open letter – in a WeChat group. She said that her involvement included the following: She saw the original message on a student WeChat group; an hour later she sent the student who wrote the original message a friend request; three hours after this she offered to share the message on his behalf; and then, two hours later, she forwarded the message, the letter, the student’s contact details, and her own accompanying message on two alumni group chats. The complainant provided a screenshot of one of the groups where she had shared the letter. The complainant also provided the messages she had sent to the student.

18. The complainant also said that the first article misquoted her, as it attributed correspondence to her when these had actually been written by another student. She said this was made, where in her message she had said “please see the message below from [student].”

19. The complainant then turned to the first article’s claim that, “[u]nder police regulations, officers are not permitted to engage in any form of political activity other than standing for election to a parish council.” She said that this was misleading because, according to The Police Regulations 2003, officers are not permitted to play any active role in politics. She said that this did not prevent her from forms of political activity such as participating in protests and vigils, and she had received guidance from the Metropolitan Police to this effect.

20. To support her position on this point, the complainant provided a Freedom of Information [FOI] response she had received from the Metropolitan Police. This said that officers could attend protests and vigils while off-duty, “but must not be in uniform, or display or indicate in any way that they are a member of the Met.” It also included a response to the question “What is the current advice given to police officers in regards to social media use in relation to the Israel-Hamas conflict?” This read:

“The situation in the middle is highly emotive and within a large organisation like ours, it will generate lots of feelings, opinions and anger on all sides. Whatever your personal opinions, as police officers and staff we must remain impartial and mindful of how we express our views as employees of the Met.

[…]

It is important for all staff to understand that anything you post online, or have posted historically, can be scrutinised and judged by today’s events. Posting strong views in the public domain can attract a large amount of unwanted attention or public criticism. If comments do not align to the Met’s values or are seen to bring the reputation of the Met into disrepute, this could be a disciplinary matter. Any of these outcomes are highly stressful for the individual involved so to protect yourself, please read our social media guidance which applies to professional and personal online accounts. Please ensure that what you currently say online – or any historical content still visible - reflects our values and standards. It should be respectful, courteous, and impartial. Even if you have not disclosed who your employer is, this will not exempt you from scrutiny, and online identities can often be pieced together, with historical comments traced to you and where you work. […]”

21. She also said that it was inaccurate for the article to report that she had “demanded uni cut ties with ’criminal’ Israel”. She said the letter that she had shared was not addressed to Peking University, nor did it make any reference to it. Rather, it was addressed to Yenching Academy, a department at the University with around 120-140 students admitted per year. She also said that the letter asked the Academy to consider cutting ties with Israeli education and research institutions, rather than with Israel itself.

22. The complainant also said that the first article was inaccurate as it reported that she had not responded to a request for comment. She said that the newspaper had not attempted to contact her to seek her comment.

23. The complainant then said that the first article under complaint breached Clause 2, as she believed the publication had published information which had been taken from her LinkedIn account; namely, the boroughs she had policed and a photograph of her. She said that the photograph was only visible to her LinkedIn connections and their connections, up to three degrees removed from her. She also expressed concern that the article had been posted and re-shared on X, with her photograph visible – she said that this could have potential ramifications for her career progression. However, during IPSO’s investigation, the complainant accepted that this information had been provided to the publication by the Metropolitan Police’s press office.

24. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 12, as it included details about her nationality which she considered was not genuinely relevant to the story. She noted that, according to the Metropolitan Police Hate Crime policy, discrimination against someone’s nationality is considered a “hate crime”.

25. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning first to the complaint made under Clause 1, it said it was confident that it had not breached this Clause by reporting that the complainant had “lobbied” students to sign a letter which took a strong political stance. It said that, although the letter had been forwarded, it considered that the complainant was clearly associating herself with the letter’s authorship, message, and mission. It said that this was “not a passive action”. It accepted that it could be the case that the complainant did not intend to convey such an active role, but – if this was the case – then she could have taken more care to distance herself from the letter and make her non-partisan stance clearer. It also said it did not agree that the complainant had been misquoted, and considered that she had attempted to gather support, shared campaign material, and had called on others to act. In addition, it noted that the headline was a summary of the article – given it was not possible for it to include all contextual information which was relevant to the story. However, it considered that the headlines of both articles were supported by the text of the articles – as required by Clause 1 (i) of the Editors’ Code – as the article explained the context behind the letter.

26. The publication noted that the police regulations state: “A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression among members of the public that it may so interfere”. It also noted that a police press officer had told its reporter that officers “are expected to remain politically neutral whilst performing as a serving police officer”, and had also confirmed that the complainant’s actions were being investigated. It further noted that its reporter had put to the complainant that her conduct “appears to breach UK police regulations which state officers must not engage in any political activity”, and she had not responded. In such circumstances, it said it did not see how there could be a breach of the Code on this point.

27. In addition, the publication provided an internal Metropolitan Police document, which said “Police officers are not permitted to engage in any form of political activity (Schedule 1 of The Police Regulations 2003) with the exception of standing for election as a Parish Councillor.”

28. The publication also did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant “demanded uni cut ties with ’criminal’ Israel”. It noted that the headline was a summary of the article, and could only contain so much information – and, given Yenching Academy was part of Peking University, as the article made clear, it did not accept that the headline was inaccurate or misleading. It also said the letter itself called on the Academy to “terminate all collaboration with Israeli Institutions”; it said it considered it was fair to characterise this as a call to cut ties with Israel.

29. The publication also said that a reporter acting on its behalf did contact the complainant, via her Facebook profile, on 24 June – over a week prior to the articles’ publication. It provided screenshots of the message.

30. Turning to the complainant’s privacy concerns, the publication said that LinkedIn was a “public forum”, and that the complainant had chosen to publish the information under complaint in on it.

31. The publication provided a screenshot of the complainant’s LinkedIn profile. This showed that the complainant had 249 connections, included her picture, and that the profile was visible to people three degrees removed from the complainant. It did not, therefore, accept that the terms of Clause 2 had been breached.

32. The publication also did not accept that the terms of Clause 12 had been breached, as the terms of Clause 12 do not refer to nationality and the reference to the complainant’s Portuguese nationality was simply adding to the context of the story.

33. While it did not accept that the articles breached the Code, it said it would be happy to add a brief comment from the complainant to the online version of the first article, as well as a line explaining that she was quoting another student in her message and soliciting signatures on their behalf – should this resolve the complaint.

34. The complainant did not accept that forwarding a message was the same as “le[ading] calls for action”. She said that the attribution of a message written by another student to her was a “clear case of misquotation”.

35. The complainant also said that the police regulation referred to said that “police officers are also required not to take an active role in politics”, but it did not follow that officers were not allowed to engage in any form of political activity. For example, the Police Federation conceded that officers were permitted to be members of political parties. She said that the comment provided by the police press officer - that officers “are expected to remain politically neutral whilst performing as a serving police officer” – was a general comment that did not directly refer to her. In addition, the complainant said that the definition of ‘political activity’ that the publication had referenced had been taken from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime’s (MOPAC) employment and restrictions on political activities. However, the complainant said that this restriction did “not extend to sharing an opinion on an international conflict.”

36. The complainant said she had reviewed her Facebook message, and had found a message sent to her by the publication’s reporter on 24 June – which had gone to her spam folder. However, she said that the publication’s article had gone further than what the message had said: while the message referred to her sharing a letter, the article said she had “led” a call to action.

37. Regarding the information regarding the area she policed, the complainant accepted that the police had provided the publication with this. However, she said that the publication “could have also made its own assessment regarding whether it was necessary and safe to publish this”, and said that the size of the area meant that it would be possible for an “aggrieved party” to locate her. She also said that, despite what the publication had been told by the police, there was no investigation ongoing, as an officer had decided that no investigation was necessary – though she said that the police were at fault for providing this information without verifying it first.

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

38. The complainant considered that the articles had misrepresented the level of her engagement and involvement with the letter she had shared, reporting that she had “led calls for action” and that she had “demand[ed]” that ties were cut. In considering the complaint, the Committee had regard for the complainant’s own narrative of her involvement with the letter’s circulation which included that: she had sought out the person who had drafted the letter; she had then circulated the letter together with a message which she had written asking people to “consider signing the letter” and asking people to share the letter more widely. While she had not drafted the letter itself, she was responsible for distributing it to people who were not known to the person who had drafted the letter. In all the circumstances, the Committee considered that there was a sufficient basis to report that the complainant had “led calls for action” and the article was not inaccurate or misleading on this point. Further, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate or misleading to report that she had “demand[ed]” that ties be cut, given that the letter which she had forwarded, and which she invited people to consider signing, requested the Academy “terminate all collaboration with Israeli Institutions”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

39. The complainant had also said that the first article under complaint misquoted her, as it attributed a message which she had forwarded from another student to her. The Committee noted that, while the other student had originally written the message – and this did not appear to be in dispute by either party – the message was drafted as having been sent by a collective; for instance, it said: “We kindly ask you to read this letter and sign it if you support this cause.” The Committee further noted that the content of the forwarded message was materially similar to both the complainant’s own message - "If you care about the ongoing genocide in Palestine and about YCA’s involvement with Israeli institutions that support it please see the message below from [other student] and consider signing the letter" - and the letter which she had forwarded. The forwarded message asked students to sign the letter and briefly explained the requests which were also set out in the letter which the complainant had forwarded. The Committee considered that – regardless of who had originally written the message, given it had been forwarded by the complainant, attributing it to her was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted.in all the circumstances. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

40. The publication had sent a request to the Metropolitan Police’s press office and had subsequently been provided with an official response which said: that all officers “[we]re expected to remain politically neutral whilst performing as a serving police officer". In addition, the publication had provided an internal Metropolitan Police document which said, “Police officers are not permitted to engage in any form of political activity (Schedule 1 of The Police Regulations 2003) with the exception of standing for election as a Parish Councillor.” The Committee did not, therefore, agree that the article had inaccurately reported that “[u]nder police regulations, officers are not permitted to engage in any form of political activity other than standing for election to a parish council.” While the Committee noted the complainant’s position that police officers were permitted to attend vigils and protests off-duty, the article was not reporting on her attendance at either a vigil or a protest. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

41. The complainant also said that she had not demanded that Peking University cut ties with Israeli institutions; rather, the letter which she had forwarded was addressed to an academy within the university. The Committee noted that the article made clear that the letter had been addressed to Yenching Academy and – given the academy is a part of Peking University – it did not consider that the references to the university being “lobbied” or asked to cut ties with Israel was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

42. The complainant also said that the letter did not demand that the Academy cut ties with Israel, as the article reported. Rather, it asked the Academy to cut ties with Israeli institutions. However, as the letter requested that the Academy “terminate all collaboration with Israeli Institutions” and referred to “concerns over the ongoing invasion, occupation, mass murder, apartheid, and genocide of the Palestinian people by the State of Israel”, the Committee did not consider that it was inaccurate to characterise this as a request to “cut ties with […] Israel”, particularly given the letter did not appear to qualify this request or make references to any Israeli organisations or institutions which it considered should be exempt. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

43. While the complainant said that she had not seen the publication’s request for comment, by the end of IPSO’s investigation it was not in dispute that – prior to the article’s publication – the newspaper had asked the complainant for her comment. It was also not in dispute that the complainant had not responded. Therefore, it was not inaccurate to report that the complainant “did not respond to a request from the JC for comment”, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

44. The complainant had said that publishing the boroughs where she worked as a police officer intruded into her private and family life, in breach of Clause 2. The Committee noted that this information related to the complainant’s public-facing role as a police officer and referred to a large highly populated geographical area, rather than to her private and family life. In addition, this information had been given to the publication by the complainant’s employer, in a statement for publication – it had not been obtained in a manner which intruded upon the complainant’s private communications or correspondence, and given the employer had readily shared this information, there was no indication that this information was private and sensitive. Taking all of these factors into account, the Committee did not consider that publishing this information intruded into the complainant’s private or family life, and there was no breach of Clause 2.

45. The complainant had also said that publishing a photograph of her breached her privacy. The photograph in question had been taken from the complainant’s LinkedIn page, and was - at the time of the article’s publication – visible to her LinkedIn connections and their connections, up to three degrees removed from her. While the Committee was not in a position to know precisely how many people had access to this photo, it noted that neither was the complainant – and she had willingly shared this picture with the privacy settings in place which would allow it to be viewed by an unknown number of individuals and without the ability to control its further distribution. The Committee considered that, by making the decision to share her photograph in this way, the complainant had limited the expectation of privacy she would have over it, given she had shared it with an unknown number of people. In addition, the Committee noted that the photograph itself did not show the complainant engaged in any private activity, or in a location which appeared to be private – it simply showed her looking at the camera, and the photograph itself did not disclose any information about the complainant beyond her likeness, which is not – in and of itself – private information. Therefore, the Committee considered that publishing the photograph did not constitute an intrusion into the complainant’s private or family life, and there was no breach of Clause 2.

46. As the publication of the photograph did not breach Clause 2, the Committee also did not consider that the re-publication of the photograph on the publication’s social media page represented a breach of the Clause.

47. Turning next to Clause 12, the Committee noted that – in some cases - a reference to an individual’s nationality may constitute a reference to their race. However, in this case the reference was not prejudicial or pejorative – it was simply a factual description of where the complainant was from. In addition, the Committee considered that it was relevant biographical detail about the complainant, which served to add context to the story. Given that, therefore, the reference could not have breached the terms of Clause 12, the Committee did not consider whether, in this case, the reference to the complainant’s nationality also constituted a reference to her race. There was no breach of Clause 12.

Conclusions

48. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

49. N/A

Date complaint received: 11/08/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/07/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Reviewer initially found that the IPSO process was flawed, as the Committee had taken information into account, when making its decision, that it should not have done. The complaint was therefore returned to the Committee so that it could reconsider two paragraphs of its decision, and the Committee issued an amended ruling.

Following the amended ruling, the complainant raised a second complaint to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Reviewer decided that the process followed in issuing the amended ruling was not flawed and did not uphold this request for independent review.