Main Index

Sub-Index of Press Articles

Ever since the very first public airing of Hunt & Keith-Hill's investigation (by Neil Hamilton during the former MP's live televised address to Parliament's Standards Committee on 14 October 1997), the British media has shown reluctance to report its existence (see Section One of Guardianlies.com).  Indeed, none of the news organisations that did report their investigation went as far as to actually air the evidence they uncovered (see Sections Two & Three of Guardianlies.com).

Chief among the news organisations that maintained a news embargo on Hunt & Keith-Hill's investigation is the Press Association, upon which the British media depends (see Section Four of Guardianlies.com). 

However, contrary to JB Hunt's expectation, when the first round of his Judicial Review action was heard at the High Court on 18 January 2002, PA News Law Reporter John Aston attended (together with Roger Pearson from the journalists' weekly newspaper the Press Gazette).  Furthermore, unlike the PA's reports of the Hamilton affair, Aston's report on the hearing was informative, impartial, free from spin, and accurate.  It was posted later that evening and disseminated to Britain's news organisations throughout the land. 

Many local newspapers up across Britain carried the story the next day.  However, despite its unprecedented legal status and its significance to the media industry generally, none of the national dailies or broadcast news organisations reported it, nor did any of the national papers mention it in their respective media and law sections over the following week.

John Aston's PA News bulletin is reproduced below. The Press Gazette's report is carried on the next page.

[ ] 1 COURTS Hamilton                                                                                                                      2'59"

CASH-FOR-QUESTIONS AUTHOR WINS LEGAL BID

By John Aston, PA News

Author and journalist Jonathan Boyd Hunt today won permission to take the Independent Television Commission to court over the Neil Hamilton cash-for-questions affair.

Mr Hunt accused the ITC of unlawfully rejecting his complaint that Granada Television failed to show "due impartiality" in its coverage of the affair.  Mr Hunt, of Seymour Grove, Manchester, said Granada did not broadcast the fact that a six-month independent investigation, conducted by himself and colleague Malcolm Keith-Hill, concluded there was "significant circumstantial evidence" supporting Mr Hamilton's claims of innocence.

A High Court judge sitting in London ruled that Mr Hunt had "an arguable case" relating to last July's ITC decision dismissing his complaint which should now go to a full hearing.

Mr Justice Burton said: "It seems to me you have an arguable case worthy of further development that the admitted failure by Granada to mention your 'significant view' renders the decision in breach of the (ITC) code of conduct, and is perverse."

Jonathan Moffett, appearing on behalf of the ITC, had argued that the code only required broadcasters to be "even-handed", and Granada had complied with that obligation.

Granada reported the cash-for-questions story on a factual basis, "for and against", and included denials by Mr Hamilton of any wrongdoing.  Because the Hunt report was supporting Mr Hamilton's claims of innocence, but putting the case in a different way, did not mean that Granada was obliged to broadcast it.

Mr Moffett said: "Simply by holding a view for different reasons cannot mean that one has a right to a mouthpiece in the media".

Giving Mr Hunt the go-ahead to seek judicial review, the judge said it was "arguable" - although he was coming to no final decision - that the code required Granada to broadcast the fact that a third party had researched the position and supported Mr Hamilton's denials.

It was the investigation's viewpoint that Mr Hamilton had been the victim of "a conspiracy by journalists".

The judge told Mr Hunt: "You have an argument you should be permitted to pursue". 

The investigation undertaken by Mr Hunt followed the May 1997 general election and was published the following October. 

He went on to publish Trial by Conspiracy, a book which purported to show that the former Conservative minister and MP for Tat ton was not guilty of taking cash from Mohamed Fayed in return for asking questions in Parliament in connection with a campaign against Tiny Rowland's Lonrho.

When the book was published in October 1998, Mr Hamilton said it would help to clear his name.

In the book, Mr Hunt claimed the cash-for-questions affair showed how "a group of Britain's most senior journalists conspired to destroy the lives of one man and his wife, and helped bring down a government in the process".

In court he accused Granada TV of a "sustained news blackout" of his investigation and findings.

Outside court, Mr Hunt welcomed the court's decision and said his legal challenge would amount to the first of its kind to the way the ITC exercised its regulatory powers.

End

181953 JAN 02

Article from the Press Gazette + comment from The Spectator