Bedfordshire Police Briefings ‘off-the-record briefing ... publication... · media outlets. It can be helpful to let the media know something that might in turn stop them wasting

136/13 LEVESON CONSULTATION: RESPONSES FROM FORCES

Bedfordshire Police Briefings ‘off-the-record briefing’ Impractical. The terminology currently used is well understood and does what it needs to. Terminology is not what matters here; instead we should be concentrating on establishing exactly what level of confidentiality is required from the reporter before you start. Meetings / Contact with the media by ACPO rank officers I expect ACPO ranking officers to deal professionally with reporters, whether a press officer is there or not is unnecessary. Also, define ‘contact’. Is this personal / social contact as well? Officers may have friends or relatives who happen to be journalists – not workable or necessary. When and who should communicate with the media We already do this. We actively encourage officers of all ranks to speak with the media if it is on an issue they know something about and in the interest of the force to promote / comment on. Press on operations and identification of individuals We already have ‘indemnity’ forms which are signed by any news gatherer accompanying officers on operations. Also, ‘controlled more tightly’ – what does this actually mean? We already define the rules very carefully when journalists already go out on police ops – I do not support making this more prescriptive as not workable when in fast changing situations in particular. Better to have strong professional relationships with the media so that they understand what is expected of them – if they play up they know they will not be invited in the future. I agree with this proposal – it is what we do anyway. We do not routinely name suspects on arrest – of course the media want the opposite but how is this really ‘in the public interest’? Logistically it is too difficult and time consuming to name every one arrested. It should be reserved for those circumstances as described, i.e. an immediate risk to public safety etc.

1 of 31


Cambridgeshire Police Briefings ‘off-the-record briefing’ ‘Common parlance’ is not the same as common understanding. Local / regional media are not always experienced or clear enough about what the term Off the Record means. Any term will become common parlance over time and therefore any change of term will become accepted over time. The interim ACPO guidance definition of Off the Record is currently followed by the force. The term ‘Off the Record’ is not used extensively or routinely by the force. Regardless of any changes to terminology where there is a clear policing purpose, the use of non-disclosable briefings can be supported, in a range of situations including telephone conversations, media briefings, press conferences etc. Leveson refers to an issue of terminology. There is a wider issue about the differences across forces about what information is given both on and off the record which may need to be addressed in responding to this point. A further review of ACPO CAG guidance would be helpful to provide a consistent basis for local practises. The need to ensure officers and staff as well as communications professionals receive appropriate, consistent training to recognise the need to be as open and transparent as possible throughout police investigations and when sharing information with the public should be considered by the College of Policing as well as at more local level. Meetings / Contact with the Media by ACPO rank officers Leveson’s proposal appears to make the assumption this would be a Publication Scheme disclosure. This could create some tensions for individual reporters following specific stories and could lead to stories being broken sooner and potentially being less well researched / accurate as a result. Under FOI information can be redacted and published at a later date, subject to certain categories. This could be used to overcome the risk of disclosing information that could compromise a reporter’s exclusive enquiries. MPS Publication Scheme register parameters further limits this risk. In the event of a follow up FOI request to disclose the detail of the subject matter discussed, what level of record keeping is necessary / proportionate? Information published no more often than quarterly would address the media concerns re protecting sources.

2 of 31


What constitutes contact between police and media? Is this for all contact i.e. in person, by phone, email? What about contact via social media (e.g. private messaging)? What about the role of the citizen journalist which is expected to continue to rise in future? Some clarity about which contact must be recorded and the circumstances. ACPO CAG guidance could assist. This could become hugely bureaucratic and time consuming for forces to administer depending on how often the information must be published. Issue of numbers is not so pressing for Cambridgeshire as MPS. Scheme could be extended to Force Executive Board members (Chief Supts and Heads of Dept) for additional transparency. An appropriate mechanism / database for capturing disclosable information in easily retrievable format needs to be developed. The existing force Gifts and Hospitality Register could potentially be adopted to serve this purpose. In practice there is not a significant amount of chief officer contact with the media in Cambridgeshire which is not already recorded with Spotlight) Press Office database). Where less formal contact does occur, notice should be provided to the Press Office for a note to be made. Agree with media feedback about this being limited to police / media contact and to police service only. In the interests of transparency this could / should be adopted across all public bodies and consideration should also be given to applying to commercial representatives and bodies. This is more relevant in the light of increasing involvement of private sector in delivering public sector services. Private organisations are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act and as such there is the potential for reduced level of transparency in future, depending on where information is held. Force follows ACPO guidelines and will always ensure contact with the media is recorded when necessary and a press officer is present as appropriate. When and who should communicate with the media Cambridgeshire Constabulary’s Guidelines for Dealing with the Media states: ‘All staff are encouraged, where appropriate, to release information to the media in line with force policy and the media strategy…Anyone can speak with the media, to advise, give information or provide comments, providing they have a good knowledge of the matter they are commenting on and are best placed to do so….’ Force guidelines are based on the ACPO CAG guideline and reviewed when new national guidance is published. It could be a disproportionate bureaucratic burden on the force to apply the same recording criteria for all officers and staff as for ACPO.

3 of 31


See previous comments about the need for an appropriate mechanism / database for capturing disclosable information in easily retrievable format. The need to be clear and definitive about which contact must be recorded is exacerbated by this recommendation. Every member of the public is a potential reporter via social media, blogs and in reporting information to the media. Would this extent to information provided at public meetings as well? It is not practicable or in the interests of reducing bureaucracy to record all contact with every individual. Previous comment regarding national (College of Policing led) and local training and development is also relevant to this recommendation. Press on operations and identification of individuals Cambridgeshire Constabulary only occasionally invites media to attend police operations. Such facilities are always offered across the media equitably and the ACPO guidelines on media attending police operations are always followed. There must always be a policing purpose to taking the media along. Data Protection and Human Rights legislation is central to these guidelines. Such proactive facilities are always managed and administered by the Press Office. Spontaneous presence of the media at the scenes of incidents and on operations is subject to the same equity of arrangements regarding access, statements and so on which are provided to all enquiring media. In law, proceedings are active at the point of arrest. The media has consistently eroded this legal point through practises over time. McNae (21st ed) identifies under Contempt of Court Act 1981 – strict liability (Pp215-216) that proceedings are active when a person is arrested. ACPO guidance makes it clear that there is a duty on police to confirm the risk of contempt. Strict liability applies to all publication or broadcast, including online. McNae also states (21st ed, Pp43-44) ‘The media may discover that someone is being investigated by police or another agency – for example that a person is under arrest. If a media report publishes that suspect’s name other details identifying him/ her in this context, that person could successfully sue the publisher for libel if the investigation does not lead to a prosecution…. (however)….if a spokesperson for a governmental agency, for example the police, CPS or a local council officially releases the name of a person under investigation / arrest, then the media can safely publish it.’ The media has consistently sought to off-set its own liability for publishing personal details by securing the protection of qualified privilege through police confirmation.

4 of 31


Police should resist all efforts to widen the naming of suspects and detainees prior to charge unless there is a clearly defined policing purpose to releasing that information into the public domain. Policing purpose could also be used as a definition for ‘exceptional and clearly identified circumstances’ i.e. a) Protecting life & Property; b) preserving order; c) preventing the commission of crimes & offences; d) bringing offenders to justice; e) any duty or responsibility arising from common or statute law. Should the media wish to name an individual whose details are sourced from contacts other than the police, it should be a matter for the media and their legal advisors to decide whether or not to publish those details. The police should no be expected by the media to assist in this process. Cleveland Police I would be concerned about separating off the record into embargoed and non-reportable briefings as for us it covers more areas than this. My team do give off the record guidance to journalists they trust about a particular story where it is important for the journalist to understand the context but the guidance should not be published and I do not think either term fully covers this. I would strongly agree on the Leveson proposals for identification of individuals in exceptional circumstances, although our Chief, Mrs Cheer, was relatively comfortable with naming on arrest. While we had slightly differing views on this we felt consistency was the key. Derbyshire Police Briefings ‘off-the-record briefing’ We think this is simplistic and not necessarily helpful. There are good reasons why there might be a conversation between the police and media that is ‘off the record’ and not to be reported. There is nothing underhand about this and it just reflects the reality of the world that we share and the need for some mutual trust – particularly in relation to local media outlets. It can be helpful to let the media know something that might in turn stop them wasting their time and/or entering into speculative reporting. It can likewise be helpful for an off the record conversation about something that in the future may or may not occur, or might be a much more formal briefing. There may be merit in avoiding the phrase ‘off the record’ which has negative and perhaps sinister connotations. The usefulness of media contact on occasions such as those outlined above might better be referred to as

5 of 31


‘unreportable’ meetings, to better reflect that their purpose as a professional discussion around context. Meetings / Contact with the media by ACPO rank officers This is a significant bureaucratic burden. Once again, this is about local relationships and trust. It is not unusual for an editor or crime reporter to make direct personal contact to explore a specific issue – and this contact can be out of hours where there are complications in the Chief Officer making some kind of record. We agree with the questions raised by the media as to why Police Chief Officers are being singled out – and what the evidence is that brings this recommendation in? This is not being applied to all ranks – and in fact some of the people the media really want are mid ranking and senior detectives. Likewise, MPs, Military leaders, civil servants etc are not having the same requirement When and who should communicate with the media This broadly reflects the guidance given by the force to all officers and we would support this approach. This fits with the organisational values of the force and the approach that we have taken about taking personal responsibility for that decision. We stress the need for anyone speaking to the media to be speaking about something they have a genuine knowledge of, and they are disclosing it for a positive policing purpose. This recommendation has a clear synergy with the National Decision making Model in terms of the thinking we are asking officers and staff to undertake when considering whether media contact is appropriate. At the heart of the NDMM has to be the values upon which all professional decisions and judgements are made. This recommendation is perhaps the most powerful and in the long term likely to be the most sustainable, stressing personal responsibility and core values rather than attempting to put a sticking plaster in place by rules and audit. Devon & Cornwall Police Off the record briefings I understand that this was discussed at the ACPO CAG meeting on 19 December. Even within my own force there are differing levels of understanding of the term ‘off the record’ which can lead to confusion between journalists and officers / staff. Therefore I am not unhappy at the ‘off the record’ term being phased out, with the service nationally moving to a more robust position whereby more information is placed on the record by individual forces. However I would suggest that the updated ACPO media guidance should give a steer to forces about this, in order to avoid a situation where different levels of information are given by different forces.

6 of 31


If ‘off the record’ is to be removed then it is important that the terms information ‘not for publication’ or ‘guidance’ remain. Without these it would be very difficult to give a steer to the media if a line of enquiry could prejudice an investigation or if they are completely wrong about an individual they believe to be involved in an investigation or incident. It is, of course, also vital that ‘embargoed briefings’ remain in place as an important means of updating the media in advance around issues / cases in which there is significant public interest. Meetings / contact with the media by ACPO rank officers We currently record ‘significant’ media contact (interview, meetings etc) internally and are looking at how this should be publicised on our website. Whilst this is a straightforward process for traditional media contact, I do have a concern about how we should record similar interactions with the media via social media channels (e.g. Twitter). As more ACPO officers start to regularly use these channels the number of journalists following them and then contacting them is, in our experience, increasing. I understand the point raised by the media about why the police have been singled out by Lord Leveson in this recommendation; however what other public sector organisations do is surely a matter for them. For our part I believe it is important that there is a degree of transparency in this area, particularly at a time when there is such a significant spotlight on the service and its activities. When and who should communicate with the media From your summary of meetings with the media I note that they have expressed concern about Lord Leveson’s proposal, however, my view is that from a policing point of view this makes absolute sense. Our own experience is that the officer / staff member most knowledgeable about the issue is always the individual best placed to talk to the media, whether they are a PC, PCSO or ACPO officer. If they are not then they simply should not be talking to them. If this simple rule is not adhered to then there is a potential for individuals to favour those they have a relationship with over others or, perhaps more importantly, for inaccurate information to be inadvertently communicated. Dorset Police The ACC and CC have expressed views on recording every ACPO interaction with the media. They agree that unsolicited calls to them should be recorded but they suggest that significant public statements and media briefing (which are typically compiled/hosted by the Force media department anyway) should not be recorded by ACPO as they are already clear and transparent.

7 of 31


The Media and Corporate Department also has some feedback regarding ‘Identification of individuals’ As a general rule, Dorset Police does not identify anyone who may, or may not, be subject to a criminal investigation. The names of witnesses, suspects and victims are typically not released unless there is a policing reason to do so or the individual gives their permission for details to be released. This decision is based on a variety of different reasons, including, but not limited to: an individual’s right to privacy; the need to ensure investigations are not compromised; the additional risks or distress that identification may cause to a suspect, witness or victim; the policing purpose) (or lack thereof) for releasing personal details; and various legal restrictions. Therefore, while there are occasions where names are released to the media, these are the exception rather than the rule. For example, when warning the public about a dangerous offender; when someone is charged with an offence; when we are appealing to find a missing person; when an inquest has been opened and adjourned for identification; and when a member of the public expresses a desire to waive their anonymity. While the media regularly and constantly enquire about the names of individuals, there is rarely a clear policing reason for the release of such information and often there is no true ‘public interest’ argument either. I would advise against any guidance that suggests that the names of arrestees should typically be released to the media as this would likely create an unrealistic expectation for journalists. It would also go against Leveson’s conclusion that: ‘it should be made clear that save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names of identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press or the public.’ Durham Police Briefings ‘off-the-record briefing’ I agree the correct use of terminology particularly around the abolishment of the term ‘off-the-record’ is appropriate. The Force’s recently-revised media and marketing procedure clearly defines the meaning and use of ‘off the record’ briefings – guidance is also provided. This has been included in media training sessions. It may be impracticable to replace the term ‘off-the-record’ but it is a cultural issue that we must strive to change.

8 of 31


Meetings / Contact with the media by ACPO rank officers Durham Constabulary has instigated a media contact data base where all media contact is recorded regardless of rank/grade. Dyfed Powys Police Recommendation 1 ‘off the record briefings’ It has become part of everyday parlance to ‘go off the record’. During ACPO CAG it was concluded that we do need an ability to speak with the media in a way that wouldn’t be reported in order to inform and educate them to avoid inaccurate speculation and the wrong information being published – this could be covered in a ‘non reportable briefing’. Taking it into context for Dyfed Powys Police – this is what we did in Op Tempest (The abduction of April Jones in October 2012). It assisted with the media relations and enabled us to share particular information with the media that we didn’t want reported. It enables us to be transparent and accountable but without jeopardising the investigation, it leads to informed and accurate coverage of a case. ACPO CAG also concluded that in cases where we need to prevent harm or protect life there needs to be a category where information is attributed to the police (for credibility) but not directly linked to a named spokesperson. Examples where this would be used include CT operations where the media are following an incorrect trail and are at risk of speculating and jeopardising investigations. This option would need clear guidance on when it is used and there be a clear case / checklist that is the same across all forces. Recommendation 2 meetings / contact recorded In principle this recommendation makes sense and should be adopted. However, more clarity is required on what constitutes ‘contact’. Is it a ‘hello’ in passing, an email, a phone call, a direct message on twitter / interaction on social media. The Met currently have a register of face to face contact published on their internet site that records the name of the officer and broadcaster. Essex Police With regards to the letter from Mr Trotter I have spoken to my Head of Media and other colleagues, and having done so the only comment we would make is that there seems to be a lack of understanding as to how forces work with local media outside of London.

9 of 31


Humberside Police Regarding ‘Briefings’ I can live with the change in language if people really feel it will improve matters albeit I tend to agree with the Media comment – ‘off the record’ has the benefits of common usage (by politicians and officials as much as anyone else). On ‘meetings/contacts’ Suggesting that we make this mandatory really does sound heavy handed and does not appear to be based on an assumption of trust and professionalism. And remember, if it is mandatory then those who make genuine mistakes in not recording are made automatically wrong. Are they to be disciplined? And at a time when we are fighting bureaucracy, we seem to be advocating yet more levels. And we simply tie up the majority/rule abiding. Those intent on doing so will ignore rules. On ‘who should communicate’ I consider the proposals to be reasonable. It would be helpful to define those with a legitimate need to do so. I think the Media concerns shown are somewhat exaggerated. On ‘identification of victims’ I do think that, on occasion, we are particularly reluctant to name people. We should not do so lightly and we should have clear guidelines on criteria to apply….but we are too risk averse at present. Jersey Police Point 1 I am not sure whether the terminology needs to be changed, so much as there needs to be clear differential between, and definition of, what constitutes:

‘Off the Record’ briefings & conversations Confidential briefings Embargoed briefings Not for publication ‘guidance’

In some cases, information given needs to be recorded, as should the names of the media representatives privy to the information – as well as its intended purposes and subsequent use.

10 of 31


The opportunity for some form of off the record or confidential briefing(s) remains a valid part of any media and communications strategy, but must be approached with caution and always done in consultation with the Press Officer. Point 2 A record should be kept of any meetings and/or conversations between Senior Officers (ACPO Officers & Superintendents) noting the date, time and any conversation / discussion topic. In view of the style of media liaison on the Island and the role and responsibilities of our Superintendents, this should potentially apply at this level. I would not advocate proactively publishing the details, but making the ‘log’ available for viewing/scrutiny on request On the issue of media concern that such documentation would potentially ‘undermine sources’ and / or ‘create mistaken assumptions about who is a source’, senior officers should, by definition, be considered official spokesmen and women, rather an a ‘source’ that needs protecting, in that this implies ‘leaked’ or unofficial information or comments. That a record of any conversation is kept and available should minimise the suggestion of any inappropriate or unofficial association between senior officers and the media. Point 3 The current position continues to be valid. It should always be that any officer questions whether he/she is the right person to be communicating on an issue – it is part of the process of dealing effectively with the media and ensuring we maintain a professional and consistent approach. Far from discouraging more junior officers from dealing with the media, it encourages them to recognise that, so long as they stay within their own areas of responsibility and appropriate remit, proactively engaging with the media creates opportunities for communicating with the public. Point 4 Providing current ACPO guidance – including the public interest test – is followed, and the purpose and objectives of taking the media on policing operations are clearly outline in the media strategy for the activity, this continues to be a valid activity. Arrangements for doing so must be seen to be fair and consistent, and the Press Officer should always be part of all discussions and considerations on the proposal from the outset.

11 of 31


It is also important to ensure that all appropriate indemnity and confidentiality paperwork is completed, briefings (including on trespass, health & safety etc) a recorded and a log of media involved is maintained. Point 5 The proposal to universally name on arrest goes against principles that, until such time as someone faces a formal charge, their identity should not be released. While it is sometimes difficult to prevent a person being identified by the media on arrest – particularly in cases involving, public figures – we should fight to maintain the person we currently hold of only confirming identity at the point of charge. You only have to look at cases like Joanna Yeats, where her neighbour was vilified and targeted by the public after being wrongly accused by the media when he was arrested as part of the murder investigation, only to be subsequently released without charge and prove to have no link to the murder. While our position to not formally identify someone at the point of arrest may not prevent this in its entirety, it does put the onus on the media to take responsibility for their actions, should they choose to publish and ‘judge’. We do maintain the position where, if we know the media to have factually wrong information about an individual, we will endeavour to give them appropriate guidance to prevent misinformation being reported. While this can, by default, lead to the media being able to determine when they have the right person, it does not override the principle that we maintain a name on charge and not on arrest. I am not convinced the US position sets the standard we should all endeavour to follow! Lancashire Police Briefings ‘off-the-record briefing On the one hand, this is purely a matter of semantics. Leveson describes a ‘non-reportable briefing’ in exactly the same way as we would describe an ‘off the record briefing’ so it is reasonable to ask ‘why bother changing the terminology?’ Perhaps Leveson is trying to draw a line under poor ‘off the record practices’ that have been discovered predominantly in the Met by calling the process by an alternative name. In Lancashire, we, and our media contacts, understand the term ‘off the record’ and when and why we might choose to provide information in this way

12 of 31


– i.e. to help shape understanding and context of an incident to ensure accurate reporting. It works very well as there is absolute clarity for both parties over the ‘rules’. The same applies to an ‘embargoed briefing’. It’s unlikely that the media Lancashire predominantly works with will adopt any new terminology around this and so we could end up in a position where press officers use the term ‘non-reportable briefing’ whilst the media continue to use the term ‘off the record’ with the potential of a reduction in clarity over the status of the information being provided. Maintaining the position as it currently stands would be more sensible in maintaining an already effective process in Lancashire. Meetings / contact with the media by ACPO rank officers There needs to be clarity over who is expected to record contact. Lancashire’s revised policy is in line with the ACPO interim guidance and applies to all officers / staff who speak with the media on significant operational / organisational issues. Leveson seems to be suggesting this is limited to ACPO officers only. Either way, it is helpful for a very brief note to be recorded as per the interim guidance, albeit routinely in Lancashire, media liaison around these types of issues involve the Corporate Communications team which records all media contact in any case. In relation to the publication of such records, some care should be taken. The media world is a competitive one and I wonder whether the editors of local / regional outlets who, from time to time request meetings with ACPO officers, would want that being made public to their competitors. It potentially places the Constabulary in a difficult position when editors are then questioning why one has been seen by a member of ACPO and they haven’t, for example. A preferential position would be to record any such contact as proposed by Leveson but instead of making it publicly available, ensure that is available for scrutiny should that be required. A question should also be asked in terms of what the actual public interest would be in publishing information of this kind routinely and therefore whether it is a justifiable use of time given the reduction in demand / resources the police service is trying to achieve. When and who should communicate with the media This has been the case in Lancashire for many years and does not discourage officers from speaking to the media. It is absolutely right that an officer / member of staff should ask themselves this question before conducting any interviews.

13 of 31


Press on operations and identification of individuals Lancashire already has a number of processes in place around the taking of the media on operations and these work well. A ‘one size fits all’ tightening of controls is dangerous in my view and could result in a lack of access for media outlets in some force areas where, perhaps, they are less keen on facilitating such requests. The current ACPO guidance is satisfactory in this area and it should be a matter for local forces as to whether the media are invited to operations depending on individual operational and community circumstances. The media will always have an alternative view to Leveson on the naming of people under arrest but the Contempt of Court legislation is absolutely clear around this and police forces should not, in my view, deviate from it – i.e., that a name will not be given at arrest stage unless there are extenuating circumstances (for example, where an individual is a risk to the public, is on the run and so on). The police service needs to be united in its approach to this, despite the strong media lobby for a change, as there are too many risks associated with the service naming or confirming a name the media have of an individual under arrest. Put simply, the media want to be able to blame someone other than themselves when the named arrestee proves to be innocent of any offences and never charged – Christopher Jeffries (Jo Yates) case is a perfect example in point. ACPO guidance does need to be consistent so there would be agreement with the Law Commission in respect of that but in Lancashire’s view; it should be consistent around the not naming of individuals under arrest routinely. Should the media wish to publish a name they have, then the risk of doing so sits with them at that stage. Consideration does, however, need to be given in any revised policy around the need for a police force to intervene at the point at which media outlets are running with the wrong name. Flexibility needs to be built in to allow forces to advise at that specific point that the media have got it wrong without being pushed into then giving the right name. It is vital that this is a simple policy decision to enable press officers to be absolutely clear about the boundaries and for the media to be clear that the same policy will apply to all forces. Any revised policy must also be clear on action force press offices can take in relation to incorrect names circulating on social media channels. There is a danger that the ‘traditional’ media will become the focus of future policies in this area and it needs to be wider than that.

14 of 31


Merseyside Police Having read the summary of discussions between ACPO Communications, MPS, Society of Editors and CRA reps, we are in full agreement with the ACPO position. However, the only additional point that we feel needs to be addressed is under the heading of ‘press on operations and identification of individuals’; A key element which we believe has been raised before is that the Leveson report does not provide any insight or guidance to the emergence of social media as a main news source of information, and is extensively used by journalists as a research tool. We feel that the rapid expansion on extensive use of SNS poses more threats to Forces than other information sources as there is currently no regulation / legislation to stop anyone posting up information on arrests etc. Metropolitan Police Service Off the Record Briefings The default position is for the vast majority of police information released for publication or broadcast to be attributed to a named person or MPS spokesperson. It is important that the police can provide context, guidance and explanation by providing information which is clearly not fur publication or broadcast. The Leveson recommendation does allow this. The decision should be logged and action taken if the media breaks this understanding. It can be as basic as information that the next court hearing is expected to be an up and down to something major such as the attempt on the life of a public figure whilst being treated with caution is not considered a serious threat. It may also be a conversation with a journalist where a story idea is discussed which can then be developed to include sourced quotes or opinion. There will be very rare occasions when police want information in a publication or broadcast but do not want it sourced to the police. This decision should be logged and only taken in exceptional circumstances – for instance if there is a risk of serous harm if the information is not presented in this way. It is important that the ability to use this is not taken away completely. However the first question must be what is the reasons why this information cannot be officially sourced? Recording contact with the Media In June 2011 the MPS began collating details of Management Board, ACPO rank officers’ and Senior Pay Groups (SPG) staff’s meetings with journalists.

15 of 31


Details of Management Board members face to face meetings with journalists were published on the internet in November. Recommendation 76 refers to ‘contact’ and ‘conversation’ between ACPO rank officers and journalists, rather than ‘meetings’. It’s therefore proposed that we enhance and formalise details collated from Management Board, ACPO rank officers and SPG staff in order to fully comply with the recommendation. The information collated will in future include:

The date of the contact The type of the contact (meeting, telephone call, email or via social

media) The name of the media organisation The name of the journalist The name of the press officer present (if applicable) A very brief note of the subject or circumstances i.e. ‘TV interview

about MPS New Year’s Eve policing’, ‘chatted about various policing issues at a social event’

It should be noted that as with the previous interim media contact register, information or chance meetings where work related issues are not discussed do not need to be recorded. Neither do public meetings in which senior MPS personnel are taking part where journalists may or may not be in the audience. Aside from these exceptions, if someone is unsure whether a contact should be included then it makes sense to err on the side of caution and put it on the register. The MPS is developing a new policy for officers and staff specifically addressing conflict of interest issues and the responsibility individuals have to continuously review their personal circumstances in relation to groups of people and associations including journalists, politicians and people working businesses such as the licensing trade. Officers and staff who have a relative or close personal friend who is a journalist will be required to declare this and they won’t then need to detail each personal contact that takes place with that person in the Media Contact Register. The penultimate sentence of recommendation 76 says that where the discussion involves a more significant operational or organisational matter, then it may be sensible for a more detailed note to be retained. It will be the responsibility of the individual officer or staff member to make and retain such a note. In practice it’s very likely that a press officer will be involved in media facilities of this nature and a recording or note will be taken

16 of 31


by him or her which will either be retained or logged on the Press Bureau Solcara system. Likewise, the final part of the recommendation – in circumstances where policy or organisation matters may be on the agenda for discussion, it is good practice for a press officer also to be present. This is already normal MPS practice. It should be also be noted that the current media contact policy for officers and staff below ACPO and SPG grades is that they keep their own note of any meetings with journalists which managers can randomly audit. This is expected to continue and will be included in the new MPS Media Policy which will be drafted early in the New Year. Identification on Arrest The media put a large amount of pressure on the police to confirm names of those arrested because of the legal protection it affords. Even if the media correctly identify someone as having been arrested that person can sue for libel if they are not subsequently charged. The media can avoid this by gaining qualified privilege. They can achieve this by getting the police or CPS to confirm the name of the person arrested. (McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists 20th edition page 28) In the vast majority of arrests we do not pro-actively release any details. However there will be occasions when it is appropriate to pro-actively release details of an arrest(s) but without the identity of the person. These include a high profile operation which is in the public domain (e.g. Weeting or Yewtree) a serious crime (e.g. an armed robbery) or an incident that has gained public attention (e.g. The release of information will be sex, age, place they live (county or London Borough), police station they have been taken to (north, south or central London or county), offence arrested for, time and date of arrest. No guidance will be given on any name which the media put to us for clarification purposes after we have proactively released details of an arrest. When a name is put to use the phrase ‘can neither confirm or deny the identity’ is used. This means that the police can’t be sued to warn reporters that their intention to name is wrong. It will also reduce the likelihood of media presenting a list of names until they fall upon the one which is correct. However the media will claim the police have a duty to inform them when they are about to identify the wrong person and our stance is unhelpful. An area that causes particular problems is when police have not pro-actively released the basic information of an arrest but a journalist says that they understand a particular individual has been arrested. An example of this might be a celebrity arrested for a minor crime. Currently if a name and brief details of the incident are provided and if they are correct an example of our response would be – ‘a 33-year-old man was arrested in Kensington on

17 of 31


January 1 on suspicion of drink driving. He has been bailed until March.’ What this is doing is confirming that the journalist has the correct name. A way to bring clarity to this could be to initially insist on a minimum amount of information before a search can be conducted. This could be location to borough level for serious crimes and road/business names for minor crimes, correct date, nature of incident e.g. violence, drink driving. The name of the suspect would not be used for a search. If found the response would be: sex, age, place they live (county or London Borough), police station they have been taken to (north, south or central London or County), offence arrested for. The statement will include. ‘The MPS is not confirming the identity of those arrested but can confirm a 33 year old man……’ This would be a major departure and likely to be seen as obstructing the press with a legitimate inquiry. Any policy must contain circumstance where we would name a person arrested. This could include incidents where the public have been warned about a wanted individual and they are then arrested or to assist in encouraging previously unidentified victims or witnesses to aid the investigation. These circumstances must be clearly defined and not left to interpretation. Norfolk & Suffolk Constabulary ‘Off the record’ The term ‘Off the Record’ is widely used and has been for many years. It is understood by both the media and police communication officers. Replacing it with a number of new definitions seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. Noting content of meetings with the media We support the argument that media contact (defined as a meeting to discuss a story briefing or organisational decision) should be recorded. Norfolk and Suffolk policy already sets out that any staff member having contact with the media should record the fact. These notes are either stored on our central database or in officers pocket notebooks. However we would not see the publication of these records as a positive step forward. Publishing basic meeting facts would seem to undermine one of the strong foundations of the police/media relations e.g. if a journalist has an ‘exclusive’ enquiry about a matter, which they have generated through good journalistic practice, why should it be published and accessible to other media outlets who have not gone to that effort?

18 of 31


With regards to press officers being present for policy or organisational issues, this is good practice, which is already adhered to in Norfolk and Suffolk. When and who should communicate with the media We agree the statement that all media communication should be for a policing purpose and should be carried out by the appropriate person. This statement is a useful litmus test that should help staff consider their position. Norfolk and Suffolk have developed a guide as to who can interact with the media and in what circumstances. This is published within our social media policy and will be published in our soon to be revised media relations policy. Professional communicators should continue to support senior managers to address complex reputational issues or operational incidents. Staff at all levels, able to display appropriate skills should be encouraged to interact with the media around non-complex non-contentious fact reporting. Press on operations / identification of individuals We follow ACPO guidance and only take the media on policing operations where there is a specific policing purpose or priority. We ensure that opportunities to go on such operations are open to all media outlets. We strongly support both the current ACPO position around not naming suspects / victims / witnesses. Current guidance on identifying suspects does not need to be strengthened or changed. Suspects under arrest will not be identified by the police until they are charged if over the age of 18. There are many occasions where suspects are arrested and then quickly eliminated by enquiries. To have their names and identities revealed at such an early stage, prior to any charge, has no policing purpose. There is the potential to dissuade victims and witnesses to come forward during the early part of the investigation if they feel they are vulnerable to having their identity and circumstances published in the media. Northamptonshire Police Briefings ‘off-the-record briefing’ Generally comfortable with this and agree the premise of the point, in that ‘off the record’ means different things to different journalists. I would support the Met’s approach in adopting ‘guidance – not for use’ or ‘guidance – not attributable’. I would suggest these terms capture what Lord

19 of 31


Leveson seeks to achieve but with further clarity for the media, and affords for those (rare) occasions where media may need to be given reportable information but without attributing to the police. ‘Embargoed briefing’ is an expression already in common use for time-restricted matters. Meetings / Contact with the media by ACPO rank officers Support the additional transparency, as the basis on which this is predicated. I would not see this as a significant bureaucratic burden for the majority of forces to implement. We operate in a culture of keeping contemporaneous notes so this would not represent a ‘giant leap’ I suggest. This approach currently taken by the Prime Minister’s office is a useful template and one that I would support as a model for taking this forward. I would recommend that consideration is given to incorporating police and crime commissioners in this recommendation. I would also suggest some further clarity would be helpful on what we mean by ‘contact’ for the purposes of reporting – does just saying ‘hello’ at a social gathering meet the criterion of contact, for recording purposes? My sense is that the threshold should be orientated around the dissemination of information from one party to another. When and who should communicate with the media This has been the approach in the service for a considerable period of time; as such I would support its continued application. Press on operations and identification of individuals Agree that there needs to be control; however it is our view that the existing ACPO CAG guidance covers this issue adequately. The existing ACPO CAG guidance is already clear in this regard. Probably an opportune section in which to add that the National Decision Model (NDM) is a sufficient and useful tool to aid the decision process, should an issue arise that is not explicitly addressed in guidance. From a practitioners’ perspective, we have used this on a number of occasions relating to several different facets of media liaison, with success. It ensures a consistent approach throughout the service, on the basis that no two sets of circumstances will be exactly the same. We would advocate that the NDM is promulgated rather than adding to guidance / policy. A more specific point on release of information relating to arrests. If the concern is around the identification, should we move to a position where we do no more than confirm an arrest has been made (i.e. Not release age and sex)? Additional details of this nature can often be a tacit confirmation of an individual’s identity.

20 of 31


Northumbria Police We are fortunate in the Northumbria force area to have a productive, professional business relationship with our regional media and those representatives of the national media who we deal with regularly. We recognise the important part the media plays as a key communications channel for the force, in particular assisting with the detection and prevention of crime. We also recognise the importance of ensuring that contact with the media is carefully monitored to ensure all our dealings are equitable, transparent and subject to public scrutiny. With those considerations in mind we welcome the recommendations of the Leveson Report. In relation to the specific issues identified for consideration our comments are as follows: Media Briefings The proposals outlined in the Leveson Report are broadly in line with current practice in the force and pose us no concerns. Northumbria do not undertake ‘off the record briefings’. Indeed our policy clearly states that ‘off the record’ comments must never be made to reporters. We use non attributable briefings only in exceptional circumstances e.g. when a media blackout is required. We do use embargoed briefings on occasions to provide the media with additional background information in more complex situations e.g. pre trial briefings. The media always have to sign an indemnity agreement before any of the above briefings. We are currently revising our policy to reflect the new wording as recommended in the Leveson Report. Our Corporate Communications team to provide ‘guidance’ to the media when clarity on points of accuracy is required and misreporting could compromise an investigation. This is assessed on a case by case basis with the rationale for any such disclosure recorded. Meetings / Contact with the Media All official contact with the media is currently documented and this practice is in line with the proposals made by Lord Leveson. Northumbria go one step further in that all officers, not just those of ACPO rank, are obliged to note any conversation with the media and make our Corporate Communications Department aware so it can be recorded. A communications officer is usually present when any officer of ACPO rank is in discussion with a reporter and a record of that discussion is made.

21 of 31


Our position is clear in that all official legitimate police sources should be publicly accountable and therefore comply with the recommendations made in the Leveson Report. We do recognise however, that there is occasionally ‘unofficial’ disclosure of information or ‘leaks’. Where this occurs it is investigated and appropriate action taken. When and Who Should Communicate with the media We are of the view that it is imperative for the ‘right’ person to speak to the media, the individual with the appropriate knowledge about the subject and capable of imparting that knowledge in a way that the public can understand. This is not necessarily determined by rank, although naturally those officers and staff in more senior positions are more likely to undertake media liaison. North Wales Police We would agree that ‘off the record’ has become common terminology, but cannot see that a change of term to ‘non reportable briefing’ would cause much of a problem. We believe that there should be greater clarity around what is expected in relation to making ACPO contact with the media publicly available. It is not currently clear if it is expected that this would be published on the website, or whether a register available on an ‘if asked’ basis would suffice. South Yorkshire Police My main observation is around taking media on operations. This is a very important tool, particularly at regional level, where we regularly take media on operations in order to develop understanding of policing and we have tried and tested protocols and agreements to support this. I would be wary of further restrictions other that those that already exist under the law. I would echo the observation that ‘off the record’ is common parlance and understood by those ‘in the business’ and has been for a very long time. Overall, I cannot comment on London but my experience regionally is that media relations are generally good and have been conducted with integrity for many years. Most regional media are too cash-strapped themselves to offer inducements or even straightforward hospitality in this day and age. There is a risk that too much regulation will stifle a positive relationship.

22 of 31


Staffordshire Police Briefings / off-the-record briefings Current force policy is that the phrase ‘off the record’ should not be used either verbally or in writing. Instead reporters should be told that the information they will receive is ‘is purely for your guidance / background understanding, and not for publication or broadcast’. This would fit with Lord Leveson’s proposal to use the term ‘non-reportable briefing’ and it would be simple to change our policy accordingly. Agree that the term ‘embargoed briefing’ is helpful in dealing with the media and managing reporters expectations. In the interests of openness and transparency, the service needs to move away from no-attributable comments. Meetings contact with the media by ACPO ranks Consistent with force policy which sets out that all police officers and police staff who have any contact with the media, however brief and in whatever way (i.e. phone, e-mail, in persons), must make a record of it in their pocket notebook, or other appropriate means, detailing; The date, time and, if appropriate, location of the contact The name of the reporter and their organisation A brief account of the discussion and any information given When and who should communicate with the media Agree with recommendation. Our policy sets out: All officers and staff are actively encouraged to be open and constructive in their dealings with the media and to provide timely, relevant and useful information to promote good police work. Each member of the Force (officer or police staff member) has authority to speak to the media in appropriate circumstances providing one of the following criteria is met:

They are the ‘officer in charge’ of a particular investigation, incident, issue or geographical area and the release of the information is unlikely to require consideration by a more senior colleague

They have been nominated to speak on behalf of the ‘officer in charge’ They have another key role in the matter giving them a sufficient

overview of the information and its consequences to make an informed judgement about the likely impact of the publicity

They have sufficient seniority and authority in their area of work to speak on behalf of the Force.

23 of 31


Press on operations and identification of individuals RE: taking press on operations we currently follow ACPO guidelines and will adhere to any amendments to existing policy. RE: identification of individuals. Agree that names should not be released except for exceptional circumstances. However, service needs to review current practices which may – to use Lord Leveson’s words – provide ‘identifying details’. Our current approach is to provide the age, gender and general place of residence for those arrested. This can sometimes indirectly assist the media in identifying individuals and publishing the details. Either the service would need to desist from this practice (reducing openness, accountability, transparency and potentially damaging police / media relations) or the media would need to abide by the practice of not naming on arrest (may require a code of conduct or legislation). We would suggest that our current approach is proportionate and, where arrested individuals are identified by the media and then subsequently released with no further action, those individuals can if they choose hold the media to account through existing laws on privacy and defamation. Our recommendation is that this area is reviewed and includes ‘naming on charge’. Certainly, as a force, we could be more proactive by naming on charge rather than on the eve of a charged person’s first court appearance. Sussex Police Sussex Police updated its media and integrity policy following the HMIC Without Fear or Favour review earlier this year. We have since reviewed it in light of the Leveson recommendations and are confident it addresses the recommendations raised. This recent policy update also provided an opportunity to ensure two of the Force’s core principles were incorporated – trusting our people and being open with the public. As a result, in some areas we are more specific than the broad Leveson recommendations or use slightly different terminology. Briefings / use of term ‘off the record’ We agree that the term ‘off the record’ is inconsistently used and often misunderstood. Our policy has a clear section on categorising information, requiring three parameters to be identified. We think this is a necessary minimum and it goes beyond the recommendations of the Leveson report. These principles apply to any kind of media interaction, including press conferences or media briefings.

24 of 31


Policy extract below: Information to be released to the media must be classified using common definitions. These three factors will be specified: 5.3.1 Proactive vs. Reactive: In line with our openness principle, a proactive press release is the expectation where there is likely public interest or operational benefit, such as with a witness appeal. A reactive ‘on demand’ statement may be used for emerging incidents that are unclear or where resources are still being deployed to manage media attention, where investigative integrity could be compromised by proactive release or for matters that are personal in nature, such as suicide. 5.3.2 for publication vs. for guidance only: The expectation is that any information given will be for publication. If guidance is needed for a specific purpose, such as to ensure a journalist is aware of reporting restrictions or to ensure context is understood, it must be made clear that this is not for publication and agreed by the journalist before you disclose information. 5.3.3 Attributable vs. Non-attributable: It must be presumed that all information given is attributable to both Sussex Police and you as an individual. We provide qualified information and should not expect anonymity. 5.4 The terms ‘on-record’ and ‘off-record’ are commonly referred to, but not commonly defined and cause confusion as some people presume them to refer to either Guidance or Attribution. Sussex Police does not use these terms. If you are using these terms with others – particularly journalists – you must be certain to clarify shared understanding before disclosing information. 5.5 Information given to the media should be presumed to be for publication and attributable. If you require information to be given for guidance rather than to be reported or not to be attributable – which is only justifiable for very specific operational purposes, such as covert investigations – you must inform and seek advice from a Media Relations Officer before disclosing this information. 8.1 This document cover the principles to be employed for all media facilitation and is clear for the most common types of media interaction, namely by phone, email or face-to-face. This section highlights the approach other specific situations: 8.1.1 Press conferences: These are generally only set up for Red issues. They must be organised by the MRO and be recorded by Audio or video for disclosure purposes. A script and likely Q&As should be prepared in advance. Even conferences that are given as ‘guidance only’ (as in 5.3.2) must be recorded.

25 of 31


Meetings / contact with the media by ACPO officers (and others) Our policy recognises the need for all officers, not just those of ACPO rank, to record contact with the media. This can be done proportionately, with individual officers able to make personal notes, although we require information given about specific incidents or issues to be recorded centrally. This approach is not just for perception and integrity reasons, but to ensure information given to media is consistent and accurate, and to manage any operational or disclosure issues. Meetings with media representatives for broader reasons, not related to a specific incident or issue, are also covered in policy, as are hospitality consideration. All the recommendations of the Leveson report are met. Policy extract below: 7.1 Our media relations activity and interaction with journalists will exhibit the highest levels of integrity, which will be achieved if it is carried out in line with this document; particularly that it is carried out only for the purposes outlined in Policy point 5.1 7.2 The use of Force media resources or self-generated media activity – for personal gain or exposure is prohibited and potentially a misconduct issue. 7.3 The disclosure of confidential, restricted or otherwise operationally sensitive information to the media for personal gain – financial or otherwise – or for other purposes not approved within this policy is prohibited and potentially a misconduct or criminal matter. 7.4 All meetings with media representatives must be recorded personally and sent to CCPED as in Procedure point 5.2. A Media Relations Officer must accompany you for meetings about Red and Amber issues (as defined in Procedure point 3.5) or if you are less experienced or confident meeting a media representative. 7.5 Any hospitality accepted or rejected from media – whether during meetings or elsewhere – must be reported as pre the Hospitality & Gratuities section of the (Anti-Fraud & Corruption Policy). Hospitality from media must be proportionate to the circumstances – such as a coffee during a meeting – and specifically not include alcohol. Who and when should we communicate with the media We welcome the common-sense and clear definition of ‘appropriate contact’ within the Leveson report. Our policy covers the same principles. We allow any officer or member of staff to speak to the media, provided it is for legitimate purpose, they have knowledge and ownership of the issue, have made a basic assessment of complexity and risk, and have sought expert advice from the Media Relations Office if required. We clearly define what we consider to be legitimate purpose.

26 of 31


We understand that this approach is more permissive than some other forces – who have taken an interim approach of requiring all media contact to be coordinated by central teams. Our approach is based on our Force principle of trust and is designed to encourage and enable legitimate media contact by individuals, such as weekly local media briefings held by district commanders. Policy extracts below: 4.3 Always be open, approachable and helpful to media representatives; if you cannot give them information under the terms of this policy and procedures, direct them to a colleague who owns the issue or CCPED. 4.4 Police Officers and Police Staff can give an interview or statement to the media provided it is for legitimate reasons (as per policy 5.1), provided they:

Have sufficient knowledge of the issue Are confident in speaking to the media Have ownership of the issue or permission from the issue owner Have made an assessment of risk as defined by the CCPED issue

scoring matrix and, in the case of red or amber issues; have sought prior advice from a Media Relations Officer.

5.1 Sussex Police media relations activity is conducted for the objectives of preventing and detecting crime, enhancing operational effectiveness, managing risk to our reputation, building our reputation in line with our values and explaining our actions and decisions to help raise public confidence and accountability. 5.2 Media relations activity not directly and clearly meeting one of these objectives and/or with a low impact on our values – whether promoting or defending them – should not take place. Press on Operations We sometimes facilitate media attachments to operations where that will enhance one of the legitimate purposes outlined above. We agree with the Leveson principle of fairness in such attachments, but would suggest that this should not always mean absolute Equality. For example, it would be legitimate if space on an attachment was limited to invite those media representatives who could provide the greatest reach for the issue and, therefore, a higher likelihood of meeting our operational objectives. We do, however, agree such considerations must be transparent, made on operational grounds and not be subject to favouritism. Policy extract below: 4.5 Media representatives deserve an impartial and fair service. This means we do not show favouritism when dealing with media organisations and individuals. This also applies to information released under these circumstances will be published on the Sussex Police website at the same time as it is released to a journalist.

27 of 31


However, fairness does not necessitate absolute equality. For example, it may be legitimate to limit the number of media representatives invited on an operational attachment and select them on the basis of the impact and reach their output will have on the target audience. 4.6 Fairness also means information about an ‘exclusive’ story that a journalist has self-sourced should not be released by police until after they have published their story; unless there are overriding operational needs to release the information earlier or media relations activity about the issue is already planned. In such cases, these reasons must be explained at the initial stage to manage the journalist’s expectation. Identification of suspects In relation to identification of suspects, Sussex Police follows the common, legally-sound practice of only confirming the identity of people arrested for an offence if they are charged. We recognise that this is not always the same standard applied by the media, who debate at what point ‘proceedings are active’ and often confirm identity of people at point of arrest, even without police confirmation. The clarity that Leveson seeks to create is welcomed. However, it appears more to be a case of persuading the media to change their practices, rather something the police can directly influence. The issue of suspect identification is specifically defined in our local policy, as we believe the legal requirements are clear and set nationally. Conclusion Overall, we are confident our recently-updated policy addresses the media and integrity concerns raised by both Leveson and the preceding HMIC review. Our accompanying practices and guidance have also been updated, which we are embedding through a structured training programme and ad-hoc advice when required. In the early New Year, we are running an internal campaign on ‘Trust and Openness’, which will clearly explain and show the linkage between the various integrity issues that have come to light over the last couple years, media interaction being one key area. As a Force, we want to reinforce that we believe appropriate contact between the police and the media is essential and legitimate. It assists operational policing, aids accountability and improves public understanding. Equally, we are clear that steps such as ensuring legitimate purpose, risk assessment and recording are critical; both to make sure that all media contact is appropriate and, equally importantly, that it is perceived as such. We are also keen that our policy supports our principle of trusting our officers and staff, providing them with the knowledge and tools they need to take personal responsibility and make the right decision. This is in preference to an overly prescriptive approach that could stifle individual responsibility and create a debilitating sense of paranoia in legitimate media interactions.

28 of 31


Thames Valley Police The Force introduced a new Media Engagement Policy in November 2012 which addressed the majority of the recommendations in the Leveson report. We have a simple non bureaucratic process for centrally recording all media interactions with officers and staff. This policy encourages police officers and staff to speak to the media directly where appropriate and provides them with advice and guidance to ensure we do so in an open and transparent way. Maintaining a good relationship with the media is essential but it should serve policing purposes and not those of an individual or the appetitive of a media outlet. We also consider that the media are no longer the only channel by which police can inform and engage with the public. Equal emphasis and importance is placed on the appropriate use by the Force of social and digital media as a means of communication and engagement. Thames Valley Police recognises the importance of continued engagement with the media but in an open and transparent way to maintain public confidence. Therefore we welcome these recommendations in the report and have taken steps to implement them into our working practices. Briefings ‘off-the-record briefing’ We already use the term embargoed briefing in the context that Leveson specifies. Within that embargoed briefing we would then use the term ‘off the record’ if we were merely giving information for background which wasn’t for reporting. It is terminology that is widely used when dealing with the media and understood. ‘Off the record’ should only be used to give guidance to prevent inaccuracies or misunderstandings and should not be used unless there is a genuine reason for it. We have found this to be invaluable in some of our cases e.g. the death of a Professor in Oxford. Meetings/ Contact with the media by ACPO rank officers TVP have already adopted this process. All officers and staff are required to log their media interaction with the Press Bureau who make a quick log of it on IT recording system. This takes seconds and is merely a log of the media contact and date. We have set out guidelines for when a press officer needs to attend an interview. Consideration will be given to a press officer attending interviews with ACPO rank officers where ever possible. TVP consider it important that police have an auditable record of media interactions to maintain public confidence and protect officers and staff. Media interaction with the police must be open and transparent.

29 of 31


Press on operations and identification of individuals We actively encourage the media to accompany officers on operations where possible. All relevant guidance and precautions are taken and invitees and attendees are recorded on the IT system. We do not offer exclusives to any media outlet and either the invite is extended to all the relevant local media for that operation or we do the photos/filming etc ourselves and offer that to all media instead. We do not release the identity of a person under arrest. However as this is very much left to Forces on an individual basis to decide, it would be helpful to both the service and the media to see stronger guidance in this area. If there was a public safety issue or an investigative reason to consider naming an arrested individual, this would be determined by the SIO and Chief Officer. When and who should communicate with the media This approach has been adopted as part of our Media Engagement Policy and does not stop lower ranks engaging with the media. Our neighbourhood officers interact with the media more often than many of our senior officers and we are keen for that to continue. As an example where this would be relevant, we would not expect a neighbourhood officer to be speaking to the media about a murder without the approval of the SIO in order to consider the impact of any communications on the investigation as well as the community. Wiltshire Police ‘Off the record’ Leveson does not cover all of the instances where ‘off the record’ could be used. During the investigation into missing Sian O’Callaghan briefings were held as ‘off the record’. However, most of this information was printed by the media, if not immediately but certainly later on in the investigation. Due to information given to press there was difficulty throughout the court process as some information was prejudicial. Neither the SIO at the time or the media took this into consideration. The ‘off the record’ briefings appeared to just ‘muddy the waters’ and reporters lacked consistency or just sourced the same information from elsewhere before printing. We advise that ‘off the record’ should not be used by any staff or officers without taking advice from the press office – if at all. There is no longer any guarantee that the media will respect the information and not publish. It

30 of 31


31 of 31

should only be used in exceptional circumstances with a reporter that is well known who has an established relationship. The media will always be keen for ‘off the record’ to remain in use but this is because it is really ‘non-attributable guidance’. It is our opinion that it is not a term that the police should make use of or we should have clear ‘rules’ as to what the term means to the police. This rule should be for all Forces to adhere to and to share with the media, therefore eliminating any confusion. Meeting with ACPO rank: Wiltshire Police have an ‘open media policy’ and we encourage all police and staff to engage with media. It may not be possible to provide a press officer for all meetings but if ACPO make sure they make a note of all contact this should suffice. Wiltshire police have not had any issues with close or inappropriate relationships with media. When and who should communicate with the media Wiltshire Police have an ‘open media policy’ and encourage all officers to engage with the media about issues that relate or that they are dealing with (stay in your lane!). These relationships are expected to be on a professional footing and officers are provided with guidance as to what is expected including not developing ‘exclusive’ relationships. Within Wiltshire Police from ACPO to PCSO’s there is an expectation that engagement with the press is part of our daily roles and how we communicate to our local communities. Press on operations and identification of individuals ACPO guidance is clear on this matter and media should be responsible when attending an operation as to not identify those arrested. Indemnities should always be signed and agreements with media drafted when working with documentaries etc. The media should take responsibility for ensuring that identities are protected and that they do not prejudice any investigation. Police press offices should be able to choose which media outlets to take on operations and not be pressured by being accused of having favourites. If we knew that a media outlet would be looking for a negative story, it would not serve us to invite them on an operation where they will use the opportunity to be negative about police.

Documents

Bedfordshire Police Briefings ‘off-the-record briefing ... publication... · media outlets. It can be helpful to let the media know something that might in turn stop them wasting