Main Index

First page of this document

(Continued from overleaf)

32. The claimant responded to this letter and reproduced both letters as appendices to his appeal dated 31 March 2001 (bundle C, tab 15, pages 42-45 & 46-52). 

33. On 2 April the claimant submitted his appeal (bundle C, tab 15, pages 21-58).  Following this, the Commission appointed a sub-committee, chaired by the Commission chairman, to which the claimant was invited to appear to give oral evidence concerning his complaint. 

34. Prior to this hearing the claimant wrote to the Commission.  At the close of his letter the claimant indicated a willingness to answer questions about any issue of fact within his complaint and appeal which Granada or any other party disputed (bundle C, tab 18, page 63). 

35. The appeal hearing was held in June at the Commission's headquarters.  Presentations were made to the sub-committee by Mr Gittos (a colleague of the claimant) and by the claimant.  Following their presentations the claimant and Mr Gittos answered questions.  None of the Members' questions were hostile and no Member expressed disagreement with any of the issues of fact or contentions within the claimant's complaint and appeal document (which now comprise part of the particulars of this application). The Commission later provided the claimant with a transcript of the hearing (bundle C, tab 23, pages 68-79).

36. Mr Gittos's address began with discussion of an issue that now lies at the heart of this application for judicial review (extract can be found at the base of page 69, bundle C):

"Before we begin, I would like to comment briefly on a curiosity in your procedure.  It does strike me that a procedure that ensures that the complainant's case is exposed to the offending licensee, but which denies the complainant a view of the licence holder's rebuttal or reply, is effectively unfair.  One side has seen one side of the case, and the other has not had that advantage.  This does seem to me, as a non-lawyer I stress, to offend against what one might call the principles of natural justice, which would seem to require a body like yours to act fairly."

37. The claimant concluded his address by drawing attention to another issue that lies central to this application for judicial review: the way the Commission had interpreted the Code vis a vis its decision to excuse Granada's censorship of the claimant's investigation on the grounds that Granada had aired other points of view relating to the controversy (extract can be found at the top of page 75, bundle C).  By way of illustration the claimant drew an analogy:

"I would like to finish by making one point on the issue of impartiality.  If there was a sports reporter reporting on a football match in which the score was three-all, and the three goals scored on one side were reported impartially, but the three goals that were scored by the other side were not reported at all, those goals that were reported impartially would not amount to an impartial report of the football match, and a biased impression would be created.  A biased impression has been created."

38. On 20 July the Commission wrote to the claimant rejecting his appeal (bundle C, tab 25, pages 82-83).  In the letter none of the points made by the claimant to support his complaint were denied.  The claimant's complaint was characterised once again as being borne out of disappointment at the broadcaster's refusal to commission a documentary from him, though the claimant had made clear in his response to the Commission's original letter of rejection (which formed part of the claimant's appeal) that he had not discussed any such documentary with Granada.  The crucial reasons given by the Commission for rejecting the appeal remained as before and were listed in paragraphs 3 and 4:

'As I explained to you, when you met the Sub-Committee on 27 June, the purpose of the review was to consider whether Granada Television had covered the 'cash for questions' affair in accordance with its statutory requirement to maintain "due impartiality" in its news coverage.  Having reviewed the relevant evidence (including oral and written statements as well as coverage broadcast on Granada's service), the Sub-Committee came to the view that the licensee had done so.
      In particular, after careful consideration of the evidence the Commission took the view that Granada reflected a sufficient range of points of views in reporting this case and that "due impartiality" was accordingly maintained in its news service.'

39. On 6 August the claimant replied (bundle C, tab 26, pages 84-87).  In his letter the claimant pointed out that the Commission had not provided the claimant with any of the evidence submitted by Granada, nor even described Granada's evidence, which the Commission had deemed so powerful that it provided valid justification for its censorship of his investigation.  The claimant quoted the Commission's Code of Practice requiring Members to provide information requested by individual citizens (bundle A, tab 9, page 253 para 2):

'In this regard I draw your attention to the Code of Practice for ITC Members, agreed on 23 January 1997.  Specifically, the requirement that Commission Members will at all times:

"- comply with all reasonable requests for information from Parliament, users of services and individual citizens"

It is clear that the ITC's rules require Members to ensure that I am provided with whatever material it is reasonable for me to request.  My requests for sight of all of Granada's submissions that are pertinent to my Complaint are, I submit, demonstrably reasonable, as indeed are the similar requests from Roger Gale MP and Gerald Howarth MP.  Accordingly I call on you as chairman to ensure that Mr Howarth, Mr Gale and myself are provided with copies of all the evidence that is pertinent to the rejection of my Complaint.'

40. On 21 August the Commission's chairman replied.  No reference was made to the claimant's request for sight of Granada's submission.

41. It is the claimant's contention that the Commission's procedure, whereupon it has adjudicated upon an issue of great public importance, in secret; and denied the complainant sight of the licensee's response to his complaint; and cited only in oblique terms the evidence supplied by the licensee without supplying any description thereof; cannot be fair, and contends further that all reasonable persons would agree.  The claimant is no lawyer, and accordingly has no access to searchable CD ROM legal judgments and other such databases to illustrate his case with case law.  However, most recently, Camelot plc sought a judicial review of the Lottery Commission's decision to exclude its bid from further consideration whilst providing its rival, Sir Richard Branson's Peoples' Lottery, more time to refine its bid.

previous page

next page