22651-23 Mann v mirror.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Paul Mann, acting on behalf of himself and on behalf of his daughter Ramandeep Kaur Mann, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Killer Brit mum on death row for poisoning husband's biryani moans jail 'worst thing ever'”, published on 28 October 2023.

2. The article – which appeared online only – appeared under the sub-headline “Ramandeep Kaur Mann is on death row in India following the killing of her husband Sukhjit Singh – but claims she is innocent and said she is going through a ‘living hell’. It then opened by reporting: “A British mother who killed her husband by poisoning his biryani and cutting his throat has complained that life in jail is the "worst thing" that ever happened to her”.

3. Further to the above, the article reported the following:

Mann said she is in a "living hell" and feels "so alone" in prison, adding that the food and the conditions are "really awful". She said she spends her days "sitting around crying" and does not speak to anyone or do anything.

She told [a different publication]: "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."

Mann, who broke down while talking about her ordeal, claims she suffered "a miscarriage of justice" while insisting she has not done "anything wrong" and saying she was "framed". She added: "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."

The woman also said she has not been visited by the British High Commission since her commission - and she was only visited by her parents who have since returned to the UK. She said she was "in shock" when she heard she had been sentenced to death and now wants people to hear her side of the story.”

4. The article continued:

“Talking about her day in prison, she said she has to queue up to use the toilet at 6am before bathing in cold water in a cubicle made up of a tap and bucket. In her cell, there are 55 other female prisoners and seven of their children, she explained.

[…]

But the woman said: "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." After Mann's conviction, Sukhjeet's mother told reporters outside the court that she was pleased her son's killer had been given capital punishment. She said: "I feel relieved. My prayers were answered and I got what I was expecting from the court. I was demanding capital punishment for Ramandeep so that no mother's child dies like this.”

5. Paul Mann, the father of Ramandeep Kaur Mann, complained that the article breached Clause 1 because his daughter had not given an interview to another publication – he said the quotes attributed to her were fabricated and therefore inaccurate.

6. 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 [a different 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”.

7. 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

8. 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.”

9. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It stated, firstly, that the article was based on an interview first reported on by a different publication. It said that the article under complaint made this clear throughout, and therefore distinguished between comment, conjecture and fact. It supplied IPSO with the article in question.

10. Further, it said that it understood the original publication had spoken to Ms Mann for approximately 10-15 minutes, and had contemporaneous shorthand notes to substantiate this. It said it was aware of the notes as it had liaised with the other publication directly, although it had not had sight of them prior to the publication of its own article. It supplied IPSO with correspondence demonstrating that the two publications have been in contact – the email from the other publication stated: “we’re fine with you sharing proof that you’ve spoken to us about Paul Mann’s complaint”.

11. In response, the complainant maintained that the article was inaccurate. He said that his daughter had been clear about how long the interaction was, and what had been said between her and the original publication, and that the interaction in question had been inaccurately described as an “interview”. Further, he added that he doubted the veracity of the notes, as, he said, these could have been put together at any time.

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.

Findings of the Committee

12. The complainant disputed that the quotes attributed to his daughter were genuine. The Committee noted, firstly, that the article made clear that its reporting was based on another article published by a different publication – it reported: “She told [a different publication]:”. The Committee noted that, to a degree, a publication would be entitled to rely on information reported by another publication. At the same time, in some situations, simply reporting what was reported by a different publication may not represent sufficient care not to publish inaccurate information, and in such cases, newspapers should be able to demonstrate that they took additional steps to ensure the accuracy of their articles. In addition, should it become apparent that such an article includes significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information, this should be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

13. The Committee had regard for the specific facts of the complaint under consideration. It recognised that the publication had been able to provide an assurance from another publication – the original source of the information under complaint – that it was satisfied as to the accuracy of its reporting. Therefore, in the specific circumstances of the case and where the article clearly made clear the source of the original information, the Committee was satisfied that due care had been taken not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

14. The Committee next considered the question of whether the article was – despite due care having been taken – significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted in its reporting of the alleged interview. While the Committee understood that both the complainant and his daughter did not accept that there had been an interview, it did not consider that describing it as such was significantly inaccurate: she had spoken to a journalist and answered questions. In these circumstances, and again, where the article clearly attributed the quotes to the initial publication, the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

15. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 08/11/2023

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/09/2024