We do not republish articles from Daily Express. Our findings are below, each quoting the words it is about. Read the full article on the outlet's own site.
The Daily Express calls two convicted men "illegal migrants" in its headline, body and caption, although the counter-terrorism police chief it quotes says they were Iranian nationals with settled immigration status. It states in its own voice that one man was prepared to attack journalists, which is the prosecutor's characterisation, not what the jury convicted him of. It calls Iran's government "the Iranian mullahs" in its own narration.
Makes a false claim
Serious
“illegal migrants spying for Iran”
Why this matters
The headline calls the two convicted men "illegal migrants" as a plain fact in the Express's own voice.
The impression it gives
A reader believes the spies were in the UK unlawfully when they were caught.
The context
The Counter Terrorism Policing chief the article quotes says this case involved Iranian nationals with settled immigration status. Anadolu, reporting the police statement, calls them two Iranian nationals. Nothing in the article shows either man was in the UK unlawfully when arrested.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“in this case, Iranian nationals with settled immigration status”
The opening line of the body repeats the label as the first thing the reader learns about who was convicted.
The impression it gives
The verdict is presented as a conviction of unlawful migrants, so their status seems part of the established facts of the case.
The context
The article's own source on immigration status, the counter-terrorism police, describes the men as having "settled immigration statuses". The verdict was about spying, not their right to be in the UK.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“nationals with "settled immigration statuses"”
“Illegal migrants were convicted of spying for Iran”
Why this matters
The picture caption states the label a third time beside a police image.
The impression it gives
The caption puts the police photograph next to the label, so the label reads as part of the official account.
The context
The police statement quoted in the article contradicts it: the deputy assistant commissioner says these were Iranian nationals with settled immigration status.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“Iranian nationals with settled immigration status”
Written straight
Two Iranian nationals with settled immigration status in the UK have been found guilty of spying for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Counter Terrorism Policing said.
States one side's claim as fact
Minor
“Sepahvand was even prepared to attack journalists”
Why this matters
The Express states in its own voice that Sepahvand was ready to attack journalists.
The impression it gives
A reader believes a readiness to attack was part of what was proved in court.
The context
The article reports convictions for helping the IRGC and conducting surveillance. The willingness to commit violence is the prosecutor's characterisation, attributed later in the article, and the outlet drops that attribution here.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“Sepahvand himself was willing to go beyond surveillance to commit serious violence”
Elsewhere in the article“convicted at Woolwich Crown Court of helping Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp and conducting surveillance”
Uses a loaded word
Minor
“Iranian mullahs”
Why this matters
The Express calls Iran's government "the Iranian mullahs" in its own narration, with no attribution.
The impression it gives
A reader takes a dismissive religious label as the neutral name for Iran's government.
The context
The word is the outlet's own. The prosecutor quoted later says "Iranian regime", and that phrase sits inside a quotation; nobody in the article says "mullahs".
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“those critical of the Iranian regime”