06120-24 Essex Police v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Essex Police complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in two articles, headlined “My police visit on Remembrance Sunday proves our justice is Kafkaesque” and “Telegraph writer in ‘Kafkaesque’ hate crime inquiry”, both of which were published on 13 November 2024.

2. The first article under complaint was written by a regular columnist for the newspaper, and appeared on page 7. It was accompanied by a large photograph of the columnist, and her name appeared prominently at the top of the article, above the headline. The article, which was written in the first-person, said that the columnist had been visited at her home by two police officers, and that one of the officers “told me that they were here to inform me that I had been accused of a non-crime hate incident (NCHI)”.

3. The article went on to say that:

“Yesterday evening Essex Police issued a statement to The Telegraph saying that they were investigating me under Section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to material allegedly ‘likely or intended to cause racial hatred’. In other words, my tweet was being treated as a criminal matter, rather than a non-crime hate incident, but that is not what I was told on Sunday.”

4. It also said that, when questioned by the article’s writer, the “two policemen exchanged glances. Clearly, the Kafkaesque situation made no sense to them, either.”

5. The article also appeared online, in substantively the same format, under the headline “My visit from police on Remembrance Sunday is living proof of our two-tier justice system”. This version of the article was published on 12 November 2024, at 9:02pm. It was accompanied by a sub-heading, which read: “A knock on the door to be accused of a non-crime hate incident from a year-old tweet is not what people fought and died for in the war”.

6. The second article under complaint was a news report of the events set out in the first article under complaint. The article – which appeared on the front-page of the newspaper – opened by reporting that a “Telegraph journalist is facing a ‘Kafkaesque’ investigation for allegedly stirring up racial hatred in a tweet last year.”

7. It went on to report that, “[i]n an article for today’s Telegraph, she said she was told by one officer that ‘I was accused of a non-crime hate incident (NCHI).”

8. The article then reported that a ”police spokesman said: ‘We’re investigating a report passed to us by another force. The report relates to a social media post which was subsequently removed. An investigation is now being carried out under section 17 of the Public Order Act.’” It also said that “Police sources indicated that it was being treated as a criminal matter rather than an NCHI”.

9. The article also reported that “[w]hen [the writer] asked the officers why she could not know what she was accused of, she said: ‘The two policemen exchanged glances. Clearly, the Kafkaesque situation made no sense to them, either.’”

10. The second article also appeared online, in substantively the same format, under the headline “Telegraph journalist faces ‘Kafkaesque’ investigation over alleged hate crime”. This version of the article was published on 12 November 2024, again at 9:02pm.

11. Prior to the article’s publication – on Tuesday 12 November, at 2:26pm – a journalist acting on behalf of the publication emailed the complainant’s Press Office. The email included the following:

“A Daily Telegraph columnist […] was visited on Sunday at 9.40 am by two police officers who told she had been reported for a non crime hate incident. She was told by them it related to a social media post a year ago which a complainant felt was inciting racial hatred. She lives at [address]. Can you confirm if this is correct, why it was done and whether it was proportionate in light of the reforms to the NCHI criteria in the past year.”

12. In response, the Press Office initially said that they were unsure whether they would be able to fully and properly respond to the publication by the end of the day “given the time of the day”. At 4:03pm, the Press Office responded as follows:

“I've just had a conversation with some officers with knowledge of this. Given what they've told me and what the now-live investigation is focusing on, it feels like an odd and potentially dangerous approach to take from the Telegraph's side? I would very strongly urge you not to publish anything on this - but I acknowledge your stance on this is that 'he would say that'. Are you aware what the investigation relates to?”

13. This was then followed by a further email, sent from the Press Office at 6:02pm:

“We’re investigating a report which was passed to us by another force. The report relates to a social media post which was subsequently removed. An investigation is now being carried out under section 17 of the Public Order Act. As part of that investigation, officers attended an address in [town] on Sunday 10 November to invite a woman to attend a voluntary interview on the matter. At this stage, we’re awaiting confirmation of her available dates. 

“NOTES / GUIDANCE Please be aware that it is clear that the Telegraph is not aware of the precise details of the report and to insinuate that, at this stage, the report is being treated as anything other than a criminal matter would be factually inaccurate. This does not mean that the report will result in criminal action, but at this stage it is an ongoing, live investigation. Please also be aware that the woman in question is yet to provide a voluntary account and we would again urge you to allow that to take place before any story is published to protect the integrity of her account. You will also be aware that any account given outside of a police setting could be treated as evidential and risks impacting on the investigation.”

14. The complainant said that both articles inaccurately reported that the columnist was being investigated in relation to a Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI), in breach of Clause 1. It said that the matter was being investigated as a criminal matter; namely, as a public order offence of inciting racial hatred. The complainant said this was made clear in its pre-publication correspondence with the newspaper.

15. A NCHI, explained the complainant, is defined as “any incident where a crime has not been committed, but where it is perceived by the reporting person or any other person that the incident was motivated by hostility or prejudice”. A Hate Crime, meanwhile, was “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”.

16. The complainant also said that it had reviewed the bodyworn footage, taken by the officers who attended the writer’s home. It said this showed the writer was “clearly told the visit relates to a matter of inciting racial hatred” and that the bodyworn footage then showed that the writer “incorrectly state[d] to attending officers that the matter is a non hate crime incident”.

17. The complainant said it was not able to share the bodyworn footage with IPSO or the publication, initially due to concerns that it would be unfair to the writer to divulge information about her such as her home address, and because it related to a live criminal investigation. Later, during IPSO’s investigation, and after a decision was made not to charge the writer, the complainant said it was not able to share the footage due to the need to protect the writer’s personal data.

18. It proposed to arrange for staff at IPSO to watch the footage; however, as IPSO’s regulations require that all information upon which the Complaints Committee bases its decision on is made available to both parties, and the complainant did not wish to share the footage with the publication, the footage was not ultimately given to IPSO in this manner.

19. While the footage itself was not supplied to IPSO, the complainant shared the following excerpt from a transcript of the bodyworn footage:

Officer: It’s gone down as an incident or offence of potentially inciting racial hatred online. That would be the offence. 

Officer: Because of what’s been alleged and the evidence that we’ve got, I need to just ask you some questions. 

Officer: It’s what’s been alleged and if there’s an offence, we need to ask questions about then we need to do that.

It said that the above excerpt was presented verbatim and in chronological order – though without the writer’s responses.

20. The complainant then said that both articles inaccurately reported that, during the interaction with the writer, the “two policemen exchanged glances. Clearly, the Kafkaesque situation made no sense to them, either.” It said the writer could not speak on behalf of its officers, and it was inaccurate to report that they did not know why they had been sent to speak to the writer.

21. Turning next to the pre-publication contact from the newspaper, the complainant said that it had not been given sufficient time to respond to the newspaper’s queries. The complainant also expressed concern that the publication had disregarded the not-for-publication guidance it had been given, and the fact that it was unaware of the full circumstances of the case – it said that, beyond the emails it had exchanged with the newspaper, there had also been “substantial verbal guidance given over the telephone […] that this is NOT a non-crime hate incident, but it is rather being treated as a crime under section 17 of the Public Order Act”.

22. The complainant also said that the newspaper had acted unethically, as it had passed its comment – provided for the purposes of publication – to the writer, and this was clear to see from reading her column.

23. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It first said that the brief transcript provided by the complainant was “wholly inadequate”, as it lacked context – including, for example, the writer’s responses to the police officers. It said, for this reason, the transcript could not be relied on as evidence to support the complainant’s position.

24. Turning to the specific inaccuracies alleged by the complainant, it said that the column was a first-person account of what the writer believed she had been told by the police – the column was clearly her understanding of the events that had transpired, was appropriately distinguished as such, and she was entitled to recount her perceived experience.

25. It said that, as a woman of good character with no criminal record, she had been shocked and upset by the police officers’ visit; it was therefore unsurprising, it said, that her recollection of the event would be confused, but she genuinely believed that she was being accused of an NCHI. It said it was worth noting that the words “hatred” and “incident” had been used in the portion of the transcript provided by the complainant, and that the complainant had confirmed that the writer had told officers she understood she was being visited in relation to an NCHI.

26. The publication also said that the news article did not report that the writer was being investigated in relation to a NCHI; on the contrary, it made clear that “officers had opened an investigation under section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986 relating to material allegedly ‘likely or intended to cause racial hatred’” and that “Police sources indicated that it was being treated as a criminal matter rather than a non-crime hate incident”. While it noted that the news article did report that the writer understood from the officers she was being investigated as a result of an NCHI complaint, this was immediately followed by the force’s position that the offence was being treated as a criminal matter. It did not accept, therefore, that the article could be inaccurate or misleading on this point.

27. The publication next turned to the complaint that both articles inaccurately reported, as fact, that the two officers did not know why they were attending the writer’s address. It said that the columnist was entitled to write about her interactions with the officers, and her perception of their behaviours and demeanour. It said that, in describing the “glance” exchanged by the officers, and her interpretation of it, the writer was not making a factual assertion. Rather, she was giving the reader “a flavour of her exchange with the officers” – it was not a verbatim recording or transcript of what had occurred, and was not presented as such.

28. Regarding whether or not the complainant had been given sufficient time to respond to its pre-publication questions, the newspaper said that the complainant had been given “ample time to respond to a very simple set of facts”. It said this was shown by the correspondence between its reporter and the complainant’s press office, which showed that the office had been fully briefed on the subject. It further noted that the statement provided by the force had been published, and disputed that the press office’s off-the-record briefing had been ignored – while, it said, it was clear the complainant did not want the story to be published, this did not mean that the decision to publish represented a breach of the Code.

29. The publication then said it “rejected entirely” any allegation of unethical behaviour, or that sharing the for-publication comment provided by the complainant with the writer represented such behaviour. It noted that this statement would have been available to her as a reader of the news article at any rate, and it did not accept that it could be unethical for a journalist to share an on-the-record statement for publication with a colleague.

30. The complainant again said it could not share the bodyworn footage, as it was evidence in a then-ongoing criminal investigation. It said that, while the publication may consider the section of the transcript to be inadequate, it said it “unequivocally” demonstrated the purpose of the visit was made clear.

31. The complainant also said that the news article did not make clear that the offence was being treated as a criminal matter, despite the inclusion of its statement, because it believed the article did not clearly distinguish between NCHIs and alleged hate crimes. It said the inaccurate reporting was compounded because the newspaper had then sought critical comments “on the false premise that the officers were calling at the reporter’s home in regard to a possible NCHI”. It also said that, while it could not supply the bodyworn footage or full transcript for the reasons it had previously set out, it could confirm that the two officers did not use the words “non crime hate incident” or “NCHI” during the interaction.

32. While the complainant accepted that the officers’ visit would have upset and shocked the writer, it said this did not excuse any inaccuracies within the column – the publication had received a comment and not-for-publication guidance clarifying the purpose of the visit.

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.

Relevant IPSO Regulations

Annex C

Transparency

8. The Regulator will ensure that both parties have had sight of any material on which the Complaints Committee may rely in reaching a determination on the complaint, including correspondence from the other party.

Findings of the Committee

33. The Committee noted that a key issue at the core of the complaint being made was precisely what was said during the interaction between the columnist and the two officers at her home. The Committee was not in a position to know precisely what had said, however, it considered the terms of the Editors’ Code did not require it to. The question for the Committee was whether, in reporting on this interaction, care had been taken not to publish significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information; and whether the articles contained information that was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. Therefore, the Committee turned first to whether the newspaper had taken care over the accuracy of the claim – made in the column – that two police officers, during the visit, “told [the writer] that they were here to inform [her] that [she] had been accused of a non-crime hate incident (NCHI)”.

34. Prior to the article’s publication, this claim had been put directly to the police force, in the following terms: “A Daily Telegraph columnist […] was visited on Sunday at 9.40 am by two police officers who told she had been reported for a non crime hate incident.” While the complainant had said that it had not been given sufficient time to respond to this email, it had responded within four hours, with both a for-publication comment and a not-for-publication note. Neither the comment nor the background note responded to the claim that the writer had been told that she had been “told she had been reported for a non crime hate incident”. While both pieces of correspondence made clear that the police were investigating the matter as a potential criminal offence, the position regarding what the writer had been told during the visit had not been disputed or corrected.

35. The column in question had clearly been prepared taking this comment into account, given it had been quoted in the column. Therefore, given the claim was put directly to the complainant prior to the article’s publication, and its response published in the article – and the comment and background note did not engage with the question of what the columnist had been told during the visit – the Committee was satisfied that care had been taken not to publish inaccurate information on this point. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 (i).

36. The disputed claim had been repeated in the news article as follows: “In an article for today’s Telegraph, [the columnist] said she was told by one officer that ‘I was accused of a non-crime hate incident (NCHI).” This was then followed again by the force’s statement, and the following sentence: “Police sources indicated that it was being treated as a criminal matter rather than an NCHI”. The Committee was therefore satisfied that care had been taken; again, the pre-publication statement and off-the-record guidance had clearly been referred to in the article, and care was taken to present the police force’s position – regarding the actual purpose of the investigation – alongside what the writer had ”said” occurred during the visit. There was, therefore, no breach of 1 (i) in relation to the news article’s reporting on this point.

37. The Committee next turned to whether either of the articles were significantly inaccurate or misleading on the above points, regardless of the care taken over their accuracy.

38. The column did not qualify its claim that the writer had been “told” that she had “been accused of a non-crime hate incident (NCHI)”. After setting out the police force’s statement regarding the investigation, including its position that she was being investigated “under Section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to material allegedly ‘likely or intended to cause racial hatred’”, the article said “but that’s not what I was told on Sunday”.

39. However, the Committee noted that the column did make clear that the matter was being treated as a “criminal matter” – regardless of what was said during the interaction – and that the description of the interaction at the writer’s house was clearly framed as her perspective of the interaction. It also set out the precise nature of the investigation against the writer, and that it was a criminal matter. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate in how it set out the writer’s perspective of what had happened during the interaction – particularly taking into account it was not in dispute that, at some point during the interaction, the columnist had mentioned NCHIs, and the Committee was not in a position to know precisely what was said in response. The Committee particularly considered this to be the case where the extract from the bodyworn footage transcript – provided by the complainant – was ambiguous in its reference to “an incident or offence”; it did not specifically say that the writer had been accused as a criminal offence. The column, on this point, did not breach Clause 1 (ii).

40. The news article clearly attributed the claim that the writer said “she was told by one officer that ‘I was accused of a non-crime hate incident (NCHI)” to the writer. This was then followed by the police’s statement, which made clear that “[a]n investigation is now being carried out under section 17 of the Public Order Act.’” The article also referenced “[p]olice sources” who, according to the article, had ”indicated that it was being treated as a criminal matter rather than an NCHI”. The news article therefore made clear that it was the writer who had claimed that she had been told by an officer that she had been accused of an NCHI, and that the police had said that it was instead being treated as a criminal matter. The news article, therefore, was not significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

41. The complainant had said that both articles breached Clause 1 by reporting the following comment from the writer: “The two policemen exchanged glances. Clearly, the Kafkaesque situation made no sense to them, either.” The Committee considered that this was clearly distinguished as the writer’s interpretation of the police officer’s demeanours during the interaction – it could not reasonably be understood as a claim of fact that the writer knew precisely what the officers were thinking. This was, therefore, distinguished from fact in line with the terms of Clause 1 (iv), and there was no breach of the Code on this point.

42. The complainant had alleged that the publication had acted unethically by passing it’s for-publication comment to the columnist, as she was – at the time the comment was passed to her – involved in a live police investigation. The Committee noted that the comment appeared in the news article less than five hours after it had originally been given to the publication, and that the comment had been prepared for the purposes of publication – and therefore to be disseminated to a large audience, including the writer. Further, it noted that Clause 1 (i), which requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information, would – on occasion – require newspapers to take such pre-publication comments into consideration when preparing articles. In this specific case, the comment set out the precise nature of the police investigation, and passing it to the writer allowed her to take it into account in the preparation and publication of her own article, and to take care not to publish inaccurate information. Finally, the Committee noted that the Code does not prohibit journalists within publications from passing information to one another as part of the newsgathering process, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. Taking these factors into account, there was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

43. The complainant had also said that Clause 1 had been breached because it had not been given sufficient time to respond to the newspaper’s pre-publication request for comment; because the publication had disregarded the not-for-publication guidance it had been given; and because the article had been published despite the fact that the publication was unaware of the full circumstances of the case.

44. The Committee noted that the complainant had been able to prepare a full response to the request for comment, prior to the articles’ publication, and that this comment had appeared in both articles under complaint. It further noted that the request for comment had been made to a Press Office – the part of the organisation dedicated to answering such queries – during normal working hours. Therefore, the Committee did not consider that the time given to the complainant to prepare a response represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information, as the response was received and published in both articles under complaint. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

45. Both articles under complaint made clear that the matter was being treated as a criminal matter. Given this was the focus of the not-for-publication guidance provided by the complainant, the Committee did not consider that there was a basis for finding that this guidance had been ignored, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

46. The complainant had said that the articles should not have been published, as the publication was not aware of the full circumstances of the case, and had attempted to dissuade the newspaper from publishing the articles under complaint. The Committee noted that, on occasion, the press will report on ongoing investigations, and the Code does not forbid it from doing so. It further noted the role that the press plays in reporting on the criminal justice system, and that – provided that the Code is not breached – there is no bar on the media reporting on ongoing and developing cases, and doing so can serve the public interest, for example by holding institutions to account, or by reporting on matters of ongoing public debate. While the publication was still required to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information – for example, by reaching out to the relevant police forces for comment – reporting on a then-ongoing police investigation did not represent a breach of the Code. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

47. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

48. N/A

Date complaint received: 13/11/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 08/04/2025