Main Index

Believing that Granada's censorship of his & Malcolm Keith-Hill's investigation into the 'cash for questions' affair was unlawful, on 17 October 2001 Jonathan Boyd Hunt submitted papers to the Royal High Courts of Justice, London, seeking permission to apply for a Judicial Review of the ITC's decision rejecting his complaint against Granada; and seeking a Declaration that the ITC Commission Members had not fulfilled their statutory duty vis a vis the Broadcasting Act's requirement that the ITC must "do all that they can to secure that every licensed service complies with the following requirements"; specifically 6(1)(c): "that due impartiality is preserved on the part of the person providing the service as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy"; and 6(3)(b): "do all that they can to secure that the provisions of the Code [i.e. ITC Programme Code] are observed in the provision of licensed services".

On 23 November the Hon. Mr. Justice Richards declined Hunt permission initially primarily because he had failed to provide proper 'particulars of claim'.  Hunt took account of Mr. Justice Richard's observations and subsequently renewed his application on 3 December with a fulsome document outlining his particulars of claim, upon receipt of which the court granted Hunt a hearing listed for 18 January 2002. 

Hunt's particulars of claim document also provided the basis for his skeleton argument for the forthcoming hearing.  It is reproduced below.

Claimant

Defendant

1. This request is in response to the decision of The Honourable Mr Justice Richards dated 23 November 2001, refusing the claimant's application for permission to seek a judicial review of the defendant Commission's decision of 19 July 2001 rejecting the claimant's complaint dated 13 July 2000 against Granada Television. 

2. In his observations Mr. Justice Richards noted that, despite the volume of papers submitted by the claimant, the claimant had not made a detailed statement of legal grounds relied on.  Mr. Justice Richards also observed that the Commission's letter of 20 July 2001 rejecting the claimant's complaint disclosed no error in law.  Furthermore, Mr. Justice Richards accepted the Commission's contention that the decision was reasonably open to the Commission on the material before it.  In this request for a hearing the claimant shall seek to address and satisfy these points.

Background to the claimant's complaint to the defendant Commission

3. On 13 July 2000 the claimant submitted to the defendant Commission a complaint against Granada Television.  The complaint centred around Granada's failure to broadcast news airing the existence and findings of a six-month independent investigation into the so-called "cash for questions" affair conducted by the claimant and a colleague, Malcolm Keith-Hill. 

4. The claimant is a freelance journalist who had worked for Granada TV and who throughout 1996 had reported and co-directed over 20 features for its local news magazine programme.  In November 1997 the claimant represented Granada for Best NW News Reporter of the Year for an investigation conducted by the claimant which was broadcast in December 1996.  Mr Keith-Hill is also a freelance journalist whose work had been broadcast previously by Granada. 

5. The claimant had undertaken his investigation, assisted by Mr Keith-Hill, in the aftermath of the 1 May 1997 general election, in preparation of a proposal for a TV documentary programme about the "cash for questions" affair and the demise of the former Conservative minister and MP for Tatton, Neil Hamilton.

6. The claimant's research identified and unearthed:

1. Significant circumstantial evidence supporting Mr Hamilton's claims of innocence.

2. Grave anomalies in the documentary evidence and oral testimony against Mr. Hamilton, which had been submitted to Sir Gordon Downey's parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Mohamed Fayed and his employees and the Guardian newspaper.  The nature of these anomalies led the claimant to allege a number of Guardian journalists (who also worked for Granada TV) as being involved in a conspiracy with Mr. Fayed and Mr. Fayed's employees to pervert the course of Sir Gordon's inquiry.

7. Despite or precisely because of the nature of their findings against the Guardian and the workings of the British media generally the claimant failed to secure a commission for their intended in-depth programme from either Channel 4, Channel 5, BBC Panorama or the BBC's Political Documentaries Unit.  Mindful of its alliances with the Guardian at no time did the claimant attempt to secure a commission from Granada Television. 

8. In mid-October 1997 Mr. Hamilton appeared before the Standards Committee and quoted widely from an interim report compiled by the claimant encapsulating research from their investigation (tab 1, bundle D).  After his address Mr. Hamilton handed this in to the clerk of the committee and it was copied to each member.

9. Two weeks later in the last days of October 1997 the claimant and his colleague held a news conference at a parliamentary outbuilding in Millbank, Westminster, at which they released their interim report of their investigation.  Neil Hamilton and his wife attended in support.  The Press Association refused to disseminate news of the conference on the grounds that the Guardian is a major shareholder.  As a consequence of direct lobbying by the claimant, two national newspapers, plus Granada TV and BBC NW, attended the conference.  BBC NW attended with camera crew and reported the conference subsequently on television.  Granada turned up without camera crew and did not mention the conference at any time.

next page