22652-23 Mann v metro.co.uk

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 metro.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Brit mum on death row for poisoning husband’s biryani reveals her ‘living hell’”, published on 28 October 2023.

2. The article – which appeared online only – opened by reporting: “A woman jailed for poisoning her husband with a biryani and slitting his throat has spoken from prison for the first time”. Further to the above, the article reported:

“Speaking to [a different publication], she said: ‘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.’

The prisoner claimed she was hard done by and feels like she hasn’t been listened to.

‘I have suffered a miscarriage of justice. I haven’t done anything wrong. I was framed and now I’m rotting in this jail,’ she said.

‘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.

‘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.’”

3. Subsequently, the article reported: “But Mann 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’.” Toward its close, it also reported:

“Recalling the events, Mann said: ‘I’ve been saying it since the start, I’m innocent. I’ve been framed. This is a miscarriage of justice.’

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

She said: ‘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 the killing was carried out by Mr Singh’s family because she claimed they wanted to prevent him from selling 21 acres of land he owned in India.

She said: ‘His family framed me.”

4. The complainant said 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.

5. In support of his position, Mr Mann supplied a letter from the British High Commission in Delhi who, he said, had visited his daughter 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”.

6. 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 ‘[a different publication] 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

7. 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.”

8. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It stated that the article was a follow-up of an article, published in good faith, to a separate article in a different publication, and it did not add new information to said article. It supplied ISPO with the article in question.

9. The publication added that the original article was written by a “very seasoned journalist”, and that it had no reason to question its accuracy. Further, it said it was aware the original publication’s reporter had contemporaneous shorthand notes, as well as a “wealth of evidence”, of his interaction with Ms Mann, although it had not at sight of the notes themselves prior to the publication of its own article.

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

10. 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: “Speaking to [a different publication], she said […]”. The Committee noted that, to a degree, a publication would be entitled to rely on information reported by another publication – as it had stated here, it had done so in “good faith”. 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.

11. The Committee had regard for the specific facts of the complaint under consideration. It recognised that the complainant’s daughter was in prison for murder in India, and that this limited the steps available to the publication to take care over the accuracy of the article, given the inherent difficulties it may have faced in trying to contact an individual resident on death row in another country. 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).

12. 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

13. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 08/11/2023

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/09/2024