Main Index

New Ground to which this Statement of Facts relates

During the High Court hearing of 18 January 2001 Jonathan Boyd Hunt argued that not only was the ITC's decision rejecting his complaint unlawful insofar that no rational person could have arrived at it, but also that the ITC's decision was unlawful in so far that it had been arrived at by way of a procedure that was unfair (vis a vis the ITC's refusal to allow him the right to scrutinise and comment upon Granada's submission). 

However Hunt had not entered this second Ground on the official claim form.  Nevertheless the Hon. Mr. Justice Burton graciously allowed him permission to submit an amended claim form containing the New Ground for Judicial Review, together with a Statement of Facts in support.

This Statement of Facts supporting the New Ground is reproduced below.  Essentially, it is a detailed chronology of the extensive correspondence from December 2001 to August 2002 between Hunt and the ITC; between Hunt and Granada; and between two Conservative MPs and the ITC, all regarding the ITC's refusal to grant Hunt the right to examine and comment upon Granada's response to his complaint.

Claimant

Defendant

1. This Statement of Facts supports the Claimant's new Ground for Judicial Review, as allowed subject to certain conditions by the Honourable Mr Justice Burton.  Namely, that the Defendant erred in law by adopting an unfair procedure when reaching its decision, in that it failed to provide to the Claimant a copy of the Interested Party's submissions. 

2. The Members of the ITC Commission are bound by a Members' Code of Practice (Bundle A; tab 9).  Paragraph one of this Code of Practice states:

'ITC Members considered and approved the following Code of Practice at their meeting on 23 January 1997.  It revised the document originally agreed by Members in December 1994, reflecting developments in a code of best practice for members of public bodies prepared by the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office recently issued a revised code of best practice.  This Code of Practice has been checked to ensure that it complies with the revised guidelines.  The document has been updated to reflect the revised approach to the declaration of interests which was agreed by Members at their meeting on 18 May 2000 and other points of fact.

Public Service Values
Commission Members will at all times:
- observe the highest standards of propriety involving impartiality, integrity and objectivity in relation to their statutory duties, the stewardship of public funds and management of the ITC;
- comply with all reasonable requests for information from Parliament, users of services and individual citizens

Chronology of events relating to Claimant's request for sight of Granada's submission to the ITC

3. All documents referred to in the following paras. 4-25 are contained within the Claimant's Bundle 'B'.

4. On Friday 1st December 2000 and again on 8th December, the Claimant engaged in telephone conversations with ITC programme officer Mr Chris Banatvala, during which the Claimant requested sight of Granada's response to his complaint.  The Claimant stated that he required this to enable him to scrutinise Granada's reasoning for censoring his investigation into the 'Cash for Questions affair'.  Mr Banatvala clarified that Granada was free to provide the Claimant with its response, but that the ITC maintained a convention not to supply opposing parties with each others' submissions.  Initially Mr Banatvala explained that the ITC was bound by these constraints imposed by the Human Rights Act.  Later, he explained that it was necessary to keep opposing parties from seeing each others' submissions in order to prevent libel actions from ensuing between parties.  The Claimant pointed out that Granada's response might contain false argument that only he would be able to identify and that Mr Banatvala should pursue his equest accordingly regardless of the ITC's convention.

5. On 16 December the Claimant wrote to Mr Banatvala (Bundle B; tab 9, p. 10-11).  In the second paragraph the Claimant recorded the essence of their two telephone conversations; in particular, the Claimant's requests for sight of Granada's response:

'During both our conversations you informed me that Granada Television has now provided the ITC with its response to my complaint, but that the ITC is under no obligation to provide me with sight of it.  You explained that the ITC does not copy opposing parties' submissions to each other, on the grounds that libel actions may ensue between parties. 
  Whilst I accept that this convention may be well-intentioned, perhaps to prevent powerful broadcasters taking legal action against complainants, I do not see a powerful media giant like Granada TV needing the ITC's protection from individuals like myself, whose armoury consists merely of facts.  Furthermore, if a powerful broadcaster has foreknowledge that a complainant will not be provided sight of its response, this could lead to the construction of false argument when the offence is serious.'

New Ground to which this Statement of Facts relates

Next Page