|
(Continued from overleaf)
Particulars of Claim
Prior to the publication of the claimant's research in 1997 Mr Hamilton's claims of innocence had been all but solitary. What backing Mr Hamilton had received had been from a relatively few close political allies and had been based on faith rather than any analysis of the evidence against him. This contrasts with the number of detractors lined up against the former minister, which were made up of the massed ranks of the media both local and national; two political parties; and a former BBC war reporter who also had the backing of the media and the opposition parties.
- Prior to the release of their interim report in October 1997 the claimant and his colleague had spent six months researching the controversy. During their research they had tracked down several witnesses whose testimony undermined the standing of Mr Hamilton's accusers and supported his version of events against theirs. The claimant discovered important documents that had been withheld by the Guardian from Sir Gordon Downey's inquiry which undermined its allegations against Mr Hamilton. The claimant established that a document pivotal to the Guardian's case had been submitted to the inquiry by the Guardian's editor as an "affidavit", though Sir Gordon Downey later confirmed that it had not been authenticated or signed by anyone, least of all sworn on oath by the journalist in whose name the Guardian's editor had submitted it. The claimant also discovered that the Guardian had written in an article and in a book published in October 1996 and January 1997 respectively, two quite different accounts of the late emergence of Mr Fayed's employees, to the official explanation which had been submitted to Sir Gordon's inquiry.
- It is self evident that any such thorough independent investigation by two freelance journalists supporting an accused man's claims of innocence will carry more weight in the eyes of others than the accused man's own claims of innocence based on nothing more than his own word.
- Between July 1997 and Oct. 1998, the claimant (and Mr Hamilton) informed Granada of the existence and findings of the claimant's investigation both orally and in writing on at least nine occasions, with particular emphasis on the claimant's two news conferences of Oct. 1997 and Oct. 1998.
- Granada did not report the claimant's investigation once even fleetingly despite the local importance of the controversy and despite Granada's awareness of the claimant's journalistic competence.
- As far as the claimant is aware neither Granada TV nor the defendant Commission have contested any of the contentions and facts aired in paras 18-22 above.
- Given the issues outlined in paras 6, 10, 18-22 above, it is the claimant's contention that his & his colleague's investigation constituted a "significant view or perspective" with respect to the controversy, and that Granada's censorship of his investigation therefore constituted a breach of the Code of 1 July 2000 under sections 3.4 which requires that, with respect to political controversies: "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".
- Further to para 24 above, and with similar regard to paras 6, 10, 18-22 above, the claimant contends that his and his colleague's investigation also constituted a "main point of view" with respect to the controversy, and that Granada's censorship of his investigation therefore constituted a breach of the Code of 1 July 2000 under sections 3.5 which requires that, with respect to political controversies: "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".
- The claimant considered that, this being the case, Granada Television's censorship of his investigation constituted partial reporting of a major political controversy, and that no reasonable person would consider differently.
- Accordingly the claimant submitted a comprehensive complaint against Granada to the Independent Television Commission (bundle A pages 1-144). A concise chronology of the Commission's handling of the claimant's complaint is listed at the beginning of the claimant's subsequent appeal of 31 March 2001 (bundle C, tab 15, pages 26-27).
- The chronology of events that make up the complaint is given in a three-page document that formed part of the complaint (bundle A, tab 1, pages 1-3). The claimant reproduced this document again as an appendix to his appeal (bundle C, tab 15, pages 39-41).
- A concise profile of the complaint's various facets is given in the claimant's appeal document (bundle C, tab 15, page 25). The specific issue about which the complaint concerns is listed in the same document (bundle C, tab 15, page 28); and beginning overleaf the claimant's argument underpinning his complaint is laid out over four pages (bundle C, tab 15, pages 29-32).
- The claimant wrote to the Commission many times requesting that the Commission disclose Granada's submission to provide for the claimant to scrutinise it. The claimant also wrote to Granada's chairman and requested sight of Granada's submission. Gerald Howarth MP and Roger Gale MP also wrote to the Commission requesting that the claimant be provided with sight of Granada's response. All these requests were steadfastly denied by the Commission and Granada (this correspondence is reproduced throughout the claimant's bundles B and C).
- The Commission's Mr Perkins rejected the claimant's complaint in a letter dated 23 February 2001 (bundle B, tab 38, pages 49-52). Central to his argument was that, although Granada did not report the publication of the claimant's book about the controversy in Oct. 1998, the broadcaster did not report the publication of the Guardian's book about the controversy in January 1997 either. No mention was made of Granada's failure to report the press conference launching the publication of the claimant's report in Oct. 1997, which Granada attended without camera crew. The writer also characterised the claimant's complaint as being borne out of dissatisfaction from having a documentary proposal rejected by Granada, though the claimant had not approached Granada with any such proposal nor even discussed a documentary even in passing. In this regard, in his only quotation of the ITC Code, the writer stated:
|
|
