A police force has lost its attempt to censure a regional daily for claiming it had asked them to sign a ‘non-disclosure agreement’ in order to attend a briefing.

The Nottingham Post and sister website Nottinghamshire Live revealed that the Nottinghamshire force had asked it to sign the NDA ahead of a briefing with the chief constable on the 2023 stabbings in the city which left three people dead.

Nottinghamshire Police then submitted a 64-page complaint to the press watchdog claiming it was inaccurate to describe the arrangement as a non-disclosure agreement.

However following a four-month-long investigation, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has now thrown out the complaint, saying it was “not significantly inaccurate” to use the term.

The row erupted after the newspaper was invited to a briefing in February to discuss the police’s actions in relation to last year’s attacks by Valdo Calocane, who killed students Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley Kumar and school caretaker Ian Coates.

The Post reported that it had to agree in writing to this being a ‘non-disclosure’ meeting before they could hear what chief constable Kate Meynell had to say.

The police have flatly denied the newspaper’s claim, saying that while the briefing was held on a non-disclosure basis, it did not legally amount to a non-disclosure agreement.

However IPSO has now ruled that in effect it did, in what could come to be seen as a landmark ruling for press freedom.

Post editor Natalie Fahy said: “I’ve worked as a journalist for nearly 20 years and I just knew something wasn’t right about the way we were being asked to commit to a promise in writing before being allowed to attend this briefing with Nottinghamshire Police.

“We increasingly find that various institutions try to curtail our freedoms as an independent press and it’s important to take a stand when any of them go too far.

“I hope no police force tries to do something like this again to any other news team and that the communications team and the National Police Chiefs’ Council use this ruling to improve their working practices moving forward.

“I am grateful to the IPSO Committee for taking the time to investigate the complaint fully.”

The police complaint was made under Clause 1 of the Editor’s Code of Practice, which covers accuracy.

IPSO’s Code Committee said in its ruling: “In circumstances where the publication was required to commit in writing not to report the information which was disclosed at the briefing as a condition of attendance, the Committee did not consider that it was significantly inaccurate to describe the arrangement in the terms used by the newspaper.”

The force also complained over a separate article which suggested Calocane was roaming the streets when he should not have been and that the police may have failed in their duty to protect the public.

However IPSO concluded that the Post was entitled to comment on any potential failings that could be uncovered by the ongoing Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation into its handling of the case.

Nottinghamshire Police’s interactions with Calocane are still under investigation by policing watchdog the IOPC, but it has previously admitted to failing to find Calocane before the fatal stabbings.

The ruling can be read in full here.