Main Index

First page of this document

(Continued from overleaf)

10. On 6 November the Standards Committee released its report on Sir Gordon Downey's investigation.  Two Conservative Members refused to endorse Downey's findings as a direct consequence, reportedly, of being swayed by the anomalies in the evidence against Mr. Hamilton outlined in the claimant's report.

11. A year later in October 1998 the claimant held a second news conference in the Jubilee Room, Palace of Westminster, at which he launched a book of the story of his investigation (tab 2, bundle D).  Conservative MP Gerald Howarth chaired the meeting, which was also supported by Labour Peeress Baroness Turner of Camden and Neil Hamilton and his wife.  Once again the Press Association refused to disseminate news of the conference despite being notified of those attending.  As a consequence of direct lobbying by the claimant's publicists at least eight news organisations attended, including the Guardian.  ITN attended with a three-man camera crew headed by one of its most senior political producers.  BBC NW's political editor attended also with two-man camera crew.  BBC NW reported the conference in its radio and TV news bulletins.  The Daily Telegraph reported the conference the next day and commented on the event in a leading article.  ITN, in which Granada has a substantial stake, did not report the conference and declined to give a reason for its change of heart despite news being relatively light that day.  Granada did not attend the conference.  Neither Granada nor the Guardian reported the conference, despite a total of five Guardian/Granada journalists attending, including a certain former Granada political documentary maker named Mark Hollingsworth.

12. On 15 November 1999 at the High Court Neil Hamilton began his libel action against Mr Fayed.  Mr Fayed offered no material evidence to defend the action, which rested entirely on his own testimony and that of three close employees and his tax adviser.  On 21 December the jury announced its rejection of Mr Hamilton's claim. 

13. On 13 February 2000 a national newspaper alleged that during the trial the previous November, and prior to Mr Fayed's employees giving their evidence, a freelance journalist named Mark Hollingsworth had sold draft cross examination documents stolen from outside the chambers of Mr Hamilton's barristers to Mohamed Fayed for £10,000 cash.  The papers had been stolen by a certain Benjamin 'Benji the binman' Pell.  Mr Hamilton immediately applied to appeal against the libel verdict on the basis that the three employees' testimony could have been enhanced by having foreknowledge of the questions they would be asked in the witness box.

14. The revelation that another Granada journalist with close connections to the Guardian had been involved in malpractice against Mr Hamilton finally prompted the claimant to complain to the ITC over Granada's news blackout of his investigation. 

15. At tab 10 page 267 in the claimant's bundle A, the Broadcasting Act 1990 section 6 (1) (c) requires that the Independent Television Commission shall:

"do all that they can to secure that every licensed service complies with the following requirements, namely -
(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"

Section 6 (3) (a) requires that the Commission shall:

"draw up, and from time to time review, a code giving guidance as to the rules to be observed in connection with the application of subsection (1) (c) in relation to licensed services"

Section 6 (3) (b) requires that the Commission shall:

"do all that they can to secure that the provisions of the Code are observed in the provision of licensed services"

16. At tab 7, page 163 of the claimant's bundle A, the ITC Code in force at 1 July 2000 states:

"3.4 Programme content: 'major matters' 
The Act requires the code to take particular account of the impartiality due to major matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy.
      What is a major matter will vary according to the current public and political agenda, whether national or regional. It would in most circumstances include political or industrial issues of national importance, such as a nationwide strike or significant legislation currently passing through Parliament.  For licensees serving a regional audience, it would also include issues of comparable importance within their region. Clearly, a regional newsroom will have a different set of priorities from that of a network programme serving the nation as a whole.
      In dealing with major matters of controversy, licensees must ensure that justice is done to a full range of significant views and perspectives during the period in which the controversy is active."

3.5 News
'Reporting should be dispassionate and news judgements based on the need to give viewers an even-handed account of events.  In reporting on matters of industrial or political controversy, the main differing views on the matter should be given their due weight in the period during which the controversy is active.'

Sufficient interest

17. Civil Procedure Rules, para 54.1.23, states:

"If the claimant has a direct personal interest in the outcome of the claim, he will normally be regarded as having a sufficient interest in the matter...  The courts have recognised that a public spirited citizen may be allowed to seek judicial review where there is a serious issue of public importance to be aired."

The claimant has spent two years full time researching the controversy and all affairs relating thereto.  Having acted as a "whistleblower" on the media's workings generally and a newspaper which many hold as being iconic within the journalistic profession, the claimant has been all but outcast from the profession.  Such has been the reluctance within his own profession to air the evidence he uncovered, the claimant believes that his best, and perhaps only, hope of getting his research aired rests with this application for judicial review being successful.  Accordingly the claimant contends that he does have sufficient interest in the outcome of the claim.

previous page

next page