22279-23 Mann v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Paul Mann, acting on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter Ramandeep Kaur Mann, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of the following four articles:

- "How the perfect couple's marriage ended in a poisoned biryani and a slit throat: British wife, 38, faces the hangman's rope after plotting with her lover to murder her husband, 34, for his £2m life insurance and £100,000 assets", published on 20 October 2023.

- "British mum speaks from death row: Wife who poisoned husband's biryani then slit his throat tells of her 'living hell' inside squalid Indian cell packed with 55 fellow inmates... as she awaits the hangman's noose for brutal murder", published on 28 October 2023.

- “Indian judge who sentenced British mother to death for murdering her husband by poisoning his biryani claimed she deserved the punishment because she shouted abuse at her mother-in-law during her trial”, published on 30 October 2023.

- "The biryani murder plot confession tape: Chilling moment the lover of death row British wife reveals how he slit the throat of her sleeping husband after she laced his curry with sedatives", published on 4 November 2023.

2. All articles appeared online only. The first article reported on the circumstances that led to the death of the complainant’s son-in-law, and the complainant’s daughter’s conviction for his murder. It described the complainant as a “businessman” and said that their family had “been left 'shattered' by her death sentence”.

3. Further to the above, the article reported: “Sources in India have told the Mail the wealthy Manns, who have political contacts in the country, had been confident it would never get to this stage. Just seven months after Ramandeep's arrest, they managed to 'buy' their second eldest child out of prison - almost unheard of for such a serious crime - which allowed her to live in relative comfort with family friends in the country, rather than languish on remand for years in one of India's notoriously squalid jails. And, by all accounts, the Manns were also convinced their money and connections would eventually help to bring Ramandeep home. 'They have spent more than £100,000 on legal fees and managed to get Ramandeep bail,' the source told the Mail”.

4. The second article included the sub-headline: “WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Ramandeep Kaur Mann found guilty of husband's murder”. It then opened: “A British mother sentenced to death by hanging for the murder of her husband by poisoning his biryani has spoken for the first time - to protest her innocence and beg for help to get pardoned. Ramandeep Kaur Mann, 38, from Derby, spoke exclusively to MailOnline from the squalid death row cell she shares with 55 others - days after she was found guilty of murdering her husband Sukhjit Singh, 34, while they were on holiday in India”.

5. Prefaced by ““It was here [in prison] that MailOnline visited her this week for a world exclusive interview”, the article included a number of quotes from the complainant’s daughter, in the following portion of the article:

Fighting back the tears, Mann told MailOnline from inside the dilapidated 18th century jail which was built during the British Raj that she is in a 'living hell.'

She cried: 'It's horrendous, it's like being in hell- both this prison and the bigger situation that I find myself in.

'It's the worst thing that has happened to me. I feel so alone, I haven't made any friends in here and I just keep myself to myself. '

The food and the conditions are really awful. I don't speak to anyone, and I don't want to do anything. I just spend the whole day sitting around crying.'

Wearing a light blue tunic with a pink scarf over her head and with greasy hair tied back, Mann looked dishevelled as she broke down and relived her ordeal.

She sobbed: 'I have suffered a miscarriage of justice. I haven't done anything wrong. I was framed and now I'm rotting in this jail.

'There's nobody helping me, I'm all alone here. I can't begin to tell you how horrendous this whole thing is. I'm not good at all. Please, somebody help me.'

Staring at the ground, she added: 'Nobody from the British High Commission has come to visit me since I've been convicted. My parents were here but they've now gone back to the UK.

'When I heard that I had been sentenced to death I was in such shock that I didn't know what to say. I still can't believe what's happening to me. But I want people to know my story. There are no words to describe what a bad situation this is for me.'

6. The first seven sentences quoted above also appeared in the third article under complaint. The first four lines quoted above appeared in the fourth article under complaint

7. The second article also reported that “Jail Superintendent […] told MailOnline: 'We are doing our best to look after her because we understand that things must be very difficult for Mann. We're encouraging her to take up a sport like badminton or run English classes for the other inmates.' But Mann wept: 'I can't bring myself to do anything because everything is so horrible and horrendous, I don't know what the future holds for me.'”

8. The second article also included a photograph of the Jail Superintendent quoted above. The photograph, taken head-on and from the midriff upward, showed the Jail Superintendent looking into the camera from roughly from a foot away. The photograph was captioned: “Jail Superintendent [a named individual]. He told MailOnline:

'We are doing our best to look after her because we understand that things must be very difficult for Mann’”.

9. The second article also reported the following:

“When asked about the events of that night, Mann wept: 'I've been saying it since the start, I'm innocent. I've been framed. This is a miscarriage of justice.'

She revealed that she has not spoken to either of her two children since her arrest and that they have not even written to her.

She cried: 'I haven't heard from my two kids for many years. They don't want to know me. It's hard to describe my pain, it's unbearable.'

Mann maintained that the killing was carried out by Mr Singh's family as they wanted to prevent him from selling 21 acres of land he owned in India.

When asked by MailOnline for further details about her claim, she hollered: 'His family framed me.'

Mann refused to go into any details about her marriage or the affair she had with Gurpreet, which started during a family holiday to Dubai in 2015, where he spent time with them.”

10. The article then closed: “As Mann was led away by a prison officer to her decrepit cell, she cried: 'I really don't know what more to say or what to do. I just want to go home.”

11. The complainant said that the first article breached Clause 1 because it inaccurately labelled him as a “businessman” – he said he was a factory worker and had never owned a business – and described his family as “wealthy” with “political contacts”. He denied either of these were true. He also questioned who had described his family as “shattered” as he said no-one in his family had shared this with the publication.

12. In addition, the complainant stated that the first article inaccurately reported that his family “managed to ‘buy’ their second eldest child out of prison”, and that they have “spent more than £100,000 on legal fees and managed to get Ramandeep bail”. He stated that the figure of legal fees was inaccurate – though he did not supply the correct figure – and that bail had been approved by the High Court in 2017.

13. He also complained that the second, third, and fourth articles breached Clause 1 as they reported on an “exclusive interview” with his daughter. He said that she had not given an interview to the publication, and that the quotes attributed to her were fabricated and therefore inaccurate.

14. In support of his position, Mr Mann supplied a letter from the British High Commission in Delhi who, he said, had visited Ms Mann in prison. The letter included the following:

“Ramandeep said that yesterday two reporters from The Mail newspaper visited her in prison. Initially she wasn’t sure who they were but later when she asked and found out they were from the media she refused to speak with them. Ramandeep asked us to speak with the prison authorities to make it clear to them that she doesn’t want to speak with media”.

15. Further, the complainant said the second article inaccurately reported that his daughter was allowed “four visits a month” – he said she was allowed up to three a week.

16. The complainant also said that the conduct of one of the publication’s reporters had breached Clause 3. He alleged that the reporter had called him on 17 October and, once the journalist had identified himself, the complainant told him that “we do not want to give an interview” and ended the call – he said that the reporter went on to call him several times on his landline phone, and “around 10 times” on his personal mobile on that day, as well as a number of times over the following days.

17. On 30 November, IPSO informed the publication that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Code. On 7 December, the publication contacted the complainant. Initially, it requested that the complainant confirm what number its reporter contacted him from, what time the first call was made, and for how long they spoke.

18. In response, the complainant corrected his initial position, and said that he had mistaken the reporter’s number for that of a different journalist. He said that the publication’s reporter had called him on 18 October at 11.00, and he informed the reporter he did not wish to speak to him – he said the call lasted no longer than 20 seconds. After this phone call, the complainant said, the reporter called him four times on his landline throughout the day, and a further two times on his mobile.

19. On 13 January 2024, the complainant also supplied a scanned image of a letter from his daughter, as well as an email from the Jail Superintendent, which, he stated, also confirmed no interview had taken place. The letter included the following:

“On Monday 23rd Oct a guard came to show me a photocopy of a British passport holder – [the reporter], asking if I knew him. I said I did not. After a while he came back saying to write a copy about not wanting to meet + sign. I wrote, ‘I Ramandeep Kaur do not know who his person is so unable to meet’.

Then on Tues 24th Oct I was called to [the Jail Superintendent’s] office. I went inside + 2 men were sitting there. [The reporter] said ‘Hi Ramandeep, how are you?’

[…]

I didn’t respond to the how are you? + got tears in my eyes. He asked ‘so how’s it been for you? must be hard’. I said ‘Horrendous’. Then he asked “so how did feel when you heard/got the long verdict”. At that point I asked where are you from? He said ‘The Mail from UK, and there has been a lot of support for you back home, like basically you have been stitched up’. I responded ‘I have’. Then [the Jail Superintendent] started speaking + said we can arrange activities like badminton etc. I said to [the Jail Superintendent] ‘I do not feel like doing anything’. I was very quiet + upset so [the Jail Superintendent] said to take me even while [the reporter] was hurling question after question + not getting any response from me. I was only in [the Jail Superintendent’s] office for no more than 1 min 30 sec [emphasis original letter] + even in that time I responded to [the Jail Superintendent] with what I said. How [the reporter] managed to get a world exclusive interview in 1 min 30 seconds or less is shocking especially when there were many silences + paused moments. I DID NOT GIVE ANY INTERVIEW!

[The Jail Superintendent] did not give them permission to meeting me on Mon 23rd + even on Tues 24th but they were persistent + said we just want to see her once hence I was called. I repeat I did not give any interview.

[…]

Ramandeep Kaur Maur 31/12/23

20. The correspondence from the Jail Superintendent read as follows:

“Hello Mr. Paul Mann,

It has to confirm you that there is no any type of interview conducted in jail.”

21. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said that its reporter had conducted an interview with the complainant’s daughter and had taken contemporaneous notes which supported this. It said its reporter had initially arrived at the jail on 23 October and had asked for permission to speak to Ms Mann. A jail official informed him she was “not interested, but then asked for a bribe and said something could be arranged”. The reporter did not continue the conversation, and a visit was subsequently arranged by an Indian-based journalist through his contacts.

22. The publication supplied IPSO with its reporter’s shorthand notes, as well as a translation – it said that parts of the notes matched the complainant’s daughter’s account of the interaction between the two parties. The translation read as follows:

“It’s been horrendous. It’s the worst thing to happen in my life. I never did this, I suffered a miscarriage of justice. I never did any of this, I was stitched up, framed by my family. No one has come to visit me from the British high commission. I’m alone, I don’t have any friends, I don’t want to speak to anyone. I don’t want to do anything. There’s no one helping me I want people to know my story. When I heard the death sentence I was shocked I didn’t know what to say or think. I have not seen or spoken to my kids for years. It’s awful. Life is horrendous it’s like hell. I’m not good at all. I’ve kept myself to myself. I don’t have any friends. I’m alone here. It’s hell.’”

23. The publication also stated that the Indian-based journalist who had helped arrange the interview was also present when it took place and had signed a witness statement attesting that the interview took place. Additionally, it said this journalist also took his own notes of the interview.

24. The publication supplied IPSO with the second journalists’ witness statement. In an email on 11 December, he stated:

“I am [name]. I work as a journalist in India and work with Times of India and have been covering Ramandeep case since 2016.

On October 24, 2023, I had accompanied [the publication’s reporter] United Kingdom to Shahjahanpur district Jail to check the condition of the prison and interview Ramandeep. The visit was facilitated by senior cops. While at the prison [the reporter] interviewed Ramandeep. She was brought at the jail superintendent's office by a prison guard.

[The reporter] then begun asking her number of questions related to her experience in jail and her case. She then gave her responses in front of me. These then formed the basis of article which appeared in daily mail online. The jail's visitor entry register does have the record of our visit. The article is a true and accurate of reflection of what she said to him. After responding to [the reporter’s] questions Ramandeep was then led away by a prison guard. It was made clear to Ramandeep that [the reporter] was reporter from daily online and came to India to speak to her only”.

25. The publication also supplied notes taken by the second journalist during the alleged interview. The notes included the following:

Ramandeep

Feels horrendous.

Worse thing happened

Alone. Keep myself to myself.

Not [illegible]

High Commission guys will come & meet next week.

Shocked. Don’t know what to say.

Jail Superintendent: asked her to play badminton or [illegible] English classes

I’m innocent.

[Illegible] children.

Want to go home.

26. The publication also noted that its reporter had been in contact with the complainant’s daughter’s lawyer following the publication of the second article under complaint, and he had not raised any concerns about it. It supplied IPSO with a text conversation between the two on 7 November. This read as follows:

Reporter: Hello sir. This is [reporter’s name] from Daily Mail in the UK. I spoke with you earlier. Many thanks for your time. My email id is [email address]. Please send me Ramandeep’s submission when you have time.

Lawyer: Ok.

Reporter: Thanks.

27. The publication also supplied the reporter’s shorthand notes of the call, as well as a translation. The notes made no reference to the articles under complaint.

28. Further, the publication stated that the complainant’s position was inconsistent: the complainant had first claimed “no interview took place at all”, however, his daughter’s letter demonstrated that she did speak to the reporter. The publication also questioned the email from the Jail Superintendent. It stated that the Superintendent had “greatly involved” in arranging the visit and was “well aware” of who the reporter was and why they had attended the prison. The publication noted that the Superintendent was pictured, and quoted, in the article itself – it also supplied two photos of the reporter posing with the Superintendent, taken outside the prison, which, the reporter said, “underline[d] that he was satisfied with how things has gone and was happy with our visit”.

29. Regarding the first article’s claim that the complainant’s family had “managed to buy their second eldest child out of prison”, the publication stated that there had been “widespread allegations of corruption around this case”. It referred to the trial judgment in which the judge referred to a police officer related to the case being placed under investigation for accepting a bribe. It supplied IPSO with the judgment, and a translation from the original Hindi version, which it said demonstrated this.

30. Further, the publication pointed to an interview between its reporter and a Superintendent at the local police force. It supplied IPSO with its reporter’s notes, and a shorthand translation. The notes quoted the Superintendent as saying:

“‘They chose to murder him [the victim] in India because the judiciary system is not good. That’s why they never did it in the UK. Her confession was not submitted in court, they thought they could get away with this. They thought they could buy their way out by paying money. The family have spent close to Rupees 1 crore (£100,000) on legal fees and bribes”.

[….]

There was a lot of corruption, we took this as a challenge. There is an inquiry going on against [a named officer]. We are looking into this. It was very clear to us that she (Ramandeep) felt that she could buy her way out of this. We are investigating these allegations of corruption.”

31. Regarding the claim that the complainant’s family were “wealthy” and “politically connected”, the publication said this information was supplied by a “confidential source who is personally acquainted with the Mann family”. In addition, it also referred to interviews between its reporter and two of the complainant’s daughter’s former lawyers. It supplied IPSO with its reporter’s notes, and shorthand translations. The notes quoted her first lawyer as saying: “Family have money, they are well connected, they have spent a lot of money on this case” – additionally, the notes quoted her lawyer at the time of her sentencing as saying: “The family have had a lot of lawyers and spent money. Close to Rs 1 crore [£100,000]. They are rich but they have suffered a lot because they have suffered an injustice.”

32. Regarding the claim that the complainant’s family had spent £100,000 in legal fees on the case, the publication pointed to interviews between its reporter and a number of sources, including: two of Ms Mann’s former lawyers, the police Superintendent, and the victims’ mothers’ family lawyer. It supplied IPSO with the notes, and translations, for these interviews. The figure of £100,000 – or the equivalent in rupees (1 crore) – was cited by all four sources.

33. Finally, the publication also stated that the Jail Superintendent had informed the reporter that the complainant’s daughter was allowed visits “up to three times a week”. It stated his exact words were: “Four meetings per month for 30 minutes, maximum of three people”.

34. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 3. It stated that the phone records for its reporter did not tally with the complainant’s description. These records, it said, showed that the reporter had called the complainant’s landline 7 times, and his mobile 3 times, on 18 October – the publication stated that trying a number “multiple times” was “standard practice”, and did not constitute harassment. The publication stated that the reporter never reached the complainant, and hence a request to desist had never been communicated – it added that its reporter would have made a note of such a request and that, ultimately, had the complainant made clear he did not wish to be contacted, it would have been a “waste of time” for the reporter to continue to try to contact him.

35. In support of its position, the publication supplied IPSO with the reporter’s phone records. There were seven calls to the complainant’s landline – the longest of which lasted 1.07 minutes, two of which also lasted around 20 seconds, and four of which lasted around 50 seconds. The record also showed three calls to the complainant’s mobile, which lasted no more than five seconds each. The publication stated that the reason some of the calls to the complainant’s landline lasted around a minute was because the complainant had a call screening function in place.

36. In addition, the publication also supplied contemporaneous text messages between its reporter and a reporter at a separate publication – it said the messages demonstrated that its reporter had not been able to reach the complainant at all. The texts read as follows:

Other reporter on 19 October: “Did you reach the death row family?”

Publication’s reporter on 20 October: “No answer. Managed to get a mobile for the dad too. Did a piece of the phone speaking to people in India. Went down well and just arrived in India. Gonna miss Burnley game!!”.

37. In response, the complainant stated that he did not dispute that the publication’s reporter had visited the prison, and had interviewed the Jail Superintendent – he disputed, however, that the quotes were accurate and said he believed the reporter’s notes had been “created for the use” of IPSO’s investigation. He added that his daughter’s letter had said that the interaction was no longer than 1 minute and 30 seconds, and he considered it “impossible” that the journalist could have taken down the reported quotes in such a timeframe.

38. Further, he stated that the Indian-based journalist who had corroborated the interview’s occurrence was not “trustworthy or reliable” because he had previously written a number of articles about his daughter – the complainant supplied IPSO with six articles written by the journalist to demonstrate this. The complainant also said that his daughter’s lawyer had not raised any concerns regarding the article after its publication as he was not aware of it when he spoke to the reporter.

39. The complainant accepted that a number of sources had supplied the publication with the figure of £100,000 and said that he “[did] not dispute the cost”. He maintained, however, that he was not a “businessman”, or that his family had any political connections in India.

40. Regarding the allegation of harassment, he confirmed that his landline had a call-screening function. He maintained that he had told the journalist he did not wish to speak to him, but the journalist had continued to contact him.

41. In response, the publication stated a confidential source had told it that the complainant was a “businessman” – the source had said that Mr Mann worked in a factory and “had some business investments”. The publication also stated that its reporter had visited the complainant’s hometown, and that other locals had referred to the complainant as a businessman. In any event, it said, it did not consider this alleged inaccuracy to be significant.

42. Further to the above, the publication stated that the complainant’s “accusations” against the Indian-based journalist were “baseless”. It stated that said journalist was a “respected and seasoned journalist working for India’s leading newspaper”, and that it had no reason to doubt his professionalism.

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 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Findings of the Committee

43. First, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns regarding the interview – which he alleged had not taken place in the manner described by the articles – and that the second, third, and fourth articles under complaint inaccurately reported a number of fabricated quotes attributed to his daughter. It acknowledged, firstly, the difficulties inherent in making findings in cases where there is a fundamental dispute of fact surrounding events which are known only to a small number of people – ultimately, only the complainant’s daughter, the publication’s reporter, the Indian-based reporter, and jail officials were present at the alleged interview. Nevertheless, its role was to consider both positions and make its finding on the basis of the information put forward by the complainant and the publication

44. The complainant had initially stated that no interview had taken place. However, following IPSO’s investigation, the Committee did not consider it to be in dispute that an interaction had occurred between the reporter, the complainant’s daughter and the Jail Superintendent: the complainant’s daughter had acknowledged this in her letter, and the publication were in agreement.

45. The publication had supplied notes which, it said, were taken by the reporter during its interview. The Committee noted that the translated version of these notes tallied with the quotes attributed to the complainant’s daughter in the articles. The Committee had regard for the significance of contemporaneous notes – generally, they are considered to be an important part of demonstrating how a publication has taken care over the accuracy of an article, and the Committee has previously placed great importance on them. However, on some occasions they are only part of the process of taking care over the accuracy of an article, and so the Committee turned to the further information put forward by both parties.

46. Alongside its own reporter’s notes, the publication had also supplied corroboration that the reporter had interviewed the complainant’s daughter, and she had made the quotes attributed to her: the Indian-based journalist had both attested to this and had supplied his own notes of the interaction. The Committee did not consider the fact he had previously covered the story meant that it could not take into account his statement and notes when making its decision. The Committee also noted that the Indian-based journalist’s notes were mostly consistent with the publication’s reporter’s notes.

47. The Jail Superintendent has said “It has to confirm you that there is not any type of interview conducted in jail”. However, despite this, the Superintendent himself appeared to have been interviewed by the publication, and neither the complainant nor the publication disputed that the journalist had spoken to the complainant’s daughter.

48. On balance and taking into account the information provided and noted above, the Committee considered that the newspaper had taken care over its reporting of the interaction between the journalist and the complainant’s daughter. It next considered whether the articles were significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted in their reporting of the alleged interview.

49. The articles reported comments made by the complainant’s daughter regarding her situation and treatment in prison, such as that she was in a “living hell”, and that “the food and conditions [were] really awful”. The reporter’s shorthand notes tallied with these quotes, as did the brief notes taken by the Indian-based reporter, and the few quotes Ms Mann acknowledged she had made. For example, the complainant’s daughter had said that the reporter had asked “so how’s it been for you? must be hard” and that she had replied “horrendous”. This tallied with the articles’ reporting that she had described her situation as “horrendous”. While the complainant disputed some of the quotes attributed to his daughter and that an interview had taken place, it was not in dispute that she had spoken to the journalist, and she had answered questions posed – Ms Mann’s own letter had acknowledged this, and the publication had both provided notes to verify its account, as well as verification from another source. In addition, the article did not materially misrepresent Ms Mann’s position: she found life in prison difficult, the conditions “horrendous”, and protested her innocence. Taking this into account, the Committee did not consider that that articles were significantly inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

50. Next, the Committee considered the remaining inaccuracies raised by the complainant, starting with his contention that the first article inaccurately referred to his family as “wealthy” and politically connected.

51. On this point, the first article under complaint read: “Sources in India have told the Mail the wealthy Manns, who have political contacts in the country, had been confident it would never get to this stage”. This was not presented as undisputed fact, or adopted as such by the publication. Rather, it was a claim, attributed to “[s]ources in India”. The publication had stated that a confidential source had supplied this information. It had also supplied notes from interviews with two of Ms Mann’s former lawyers, who had been quoted as saying: “family have money, they are well connected, they have spent a lot of money on this case” and “the family have had a lot of lawyers and spent money […t]hey are rich but they have suffered a lot because they have suffered an injustice’”.

52. The Committee noted the complainant’s disagreement with this description of his family. However, it was satisfied that – considering the statements made by several sources, which the publication had been able to supply – the publication had a sufficient basis to report the claim that the family were “wealthy” and politically connected. In all, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken care not to report inaccurate information on this point and that the article was not inaccurate, distorted, or misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

53. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s contention that the article inaccurately described him as a “businessman”. While the Committee appreciated that the complainant disagreed with this description, the publication had stated that numerous local individuals had referred to him in this manner, including its confidential source. In any event, the Committee did not consider this alleged inaccuracy to be significant to the context of the article as a whole – the focus of which was on the complainant’s daughter’s conviction, and the specifics of the complainant’s job was not materially significant to the article. In all, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken due care, and the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

54. Next, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns that the article inaccurately reported his family had managed to “buy” his daughter “out of prison”. The Committee noted, firstly, that the statement in the article was placed in inverted commas, clearly indicating it was a claim: “Just seven months after Ramandeep's arrest, they managed to 'buy' their second eldest child out of prison”.

55. The publication had provided its interview with a local police Superintendent, who had stated: “they thought they could buy their way out by paying money. The family have spent close to Rupees 1 crore (£100,000) on legal fees and bribes” and “We are looking into this. It was very clear to us that she (Ramandeep) felt that she could buy her way out of this”. In light of this, the Committee was again satisfied that the newspaper had taken care over the accuracy of this allegation. In addition, where the publication had supplied the statement from the police superintendent, and where it was not in dispute that Ms Mann had ultimately been bailed, the Committee did not consider that the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

56. Next, the Committee considered the complainant’s objections that the first article reported his family had spent £100,000 on legal fees. The complainant had later accepted that the figure was accurate. Accordingly, the Committee did not consider the article to be inaccurate or misleading on this point and there was no breach of Clause 1.

57. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 1 regarding first article’s claim that the complainant’s daughter was allowed “four visits a month”. The publication had stated that the Jail Superintendent had informed the reporter of this, and had quoted him as saying: “‘Four meetings per month for 30 minutes, maximum of three people” – the complainant had not objected to this once he had had sight of the Superintendent’s comment. The Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken due care, and the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading on this point – there was no breach of Clause 1.

58. The Committee considered the complainant’s complaint under Clause 1 regarding an article’s description of his family as “shattered”. The complainant had not explicitly disputed the accuracy of this description. Rather, he had questioned who had said it. Given the complainant did not say that this was an inaccurate, misleading, or distorted description of his family’s response to his daughter’s conviction, the Committee did not consider that the complainant’s concerns on this point represented a breach of Clause 1.

59. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 3. The Clause makes clear that a request to desist from telephoning and questioning should generally be followed, unless there is a proportionate and demonstrable public interest justification to continue contacting an individual. However, the Committee appreciated the difficulties that can be faced in adjudicating on Clause 3 complaints in situations where both parties dispute the accounts of contact between them – as with the complainant’s Clause 1 complaint, the Committee noted that it could not be certain whether the reporter had spoken to the complainant.

60. The Committee considered the complainant’s position that he had spoken to the reporter when the reporter initially rang. The longest recorded call was 1 minute and 7 seconds long – in the Committee’s view, this was long enough for such a conversation to take place. However, it was not in dispute that a call screening function was in place on the complainant’s landline, which could mean that a call could last over a minute without any direct conversation taking place between the caller and the person being called, as the publication maintained was the case in this instance.

61. In addition, the Committee took into account the contemporaneous text message sent from the reporter to a separate reporter at a different publication: when asked if he had reached the family, the reporter responded: “No answer”. The Committee noted that this message was sent on 20 October, two days after the alleged conversation had taken place.

62. On balance, and taking forward the information provided by both the complainant and the publication, the Committee did not consider that there was a sufficient basis to find that the complainant had made a request to a journalist acting on behalf of the publication that he did not wish to be telephoned or questioned: The publication had been able provide a contemporaneous text message which appeared to demonstrate that the journalist had told another individual at the time that contact had never been made, and the complainant acknowledged that he had been contacted by multiple journalists – it was therefore possible that the complainant had told another journalist to desist. Therefore, on the basis of the information provided, the Committee did not consider that there was a sufficient basis to find a breach of Clause 3.

Conclusions

63. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 08/11/2023

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/09/2024