|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is Coverup.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Press Gazette report of the High Court hearing at which Hunt was granted a Judicial Review of the ITC's rejection of his complaint against Granada TV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sub-Index of Press Articles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreword
Though the Press Association disseminated a news bulletin about JB Hunt's High Court action to all of Britain's newspapers and broadcasters, no national broadcaster or newspaper reported the case.
However, the journalists' weekly newspaper, the Press Gazette, carried an article about the case on page nine of its next issue (right). This is reproduced below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victory for Hamilton defender
By Roger Pearson
The Independent Television Commission's handling of a complaint from a journalist about Granada TV's coverage of the Neil Hamilton 'cash for questions' affair is to be placed under High Court scrutiny in what is said to be a landmark case.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt has won permission for what he says will be the first challenge of its kind to the way the ITC exercises its regulatory powers.
Mr Justice Burton ruled that he had an "arguable case" in his claim that Granada failed to show "due impartiality" in its handling of the affair.
In court, Hunt claimed that Granada TV had carried out a "sustained news blackout" of the six-month independent investigation conducted by him and colleague Malcolm Keith-Hill, in which the pair found "significant circumstantial evidence" supporting Hamilton's claims of innocence. It also found that Hamilton had been the victim of a journalists' conspiracy.
Jonathan Moffett, counsel for the commission, had argued that the regulator's code of conduct only required "even-handed" coverage, and that Granada had met that requirement by including in its reports Hamilton's denials.
However, Mr Justice Burton said that there was an arguable case that the code of conduct required Granada TV to broadcast the fact that a third party's research into the affair supported Hamilton's denials. Granting permission for a full hearing into the case, which is expected to take place later this year, the judge said: "It seems to me you have an arguable case worthy of further development that the admitted failure by Granada Television to mention your significant view renders the decision in breach of the code of conduct and perverse."
Hunt undertook his investigation following the May 1997 General Election, and went on to publish a book, Trial by Conspiracy, in which he claimed that the former Conservative minister and MP for Tatton was not guilty of accepting cash from Mohamed Al Fayed in return for asking questions in Parliament.
Hunt said he had concentrated on his investigation since May 1997 after leaving Granada, where he worked as a freelance reporter. He had no legal representation at the High Court but is hoping to get legal aid for the full hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Footnote
A few weeks later on 9 February, The Spectator's media correspondent, Stephen Glover, concluded his column with a commentary on the press's reporting of Hunt's precedent-setting legal challenge. Glover wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Hunt, accuser of Mohamed Fayed and the Guardian, has re-emerged. In a surprising ruling a couple of weeks ago, Mr Justice Burton said that Mr Hunt has an 'arguable case' that Granada Television had failed to show 'due impartiality' in its coverage of the Neil Hamilton 'cash for questions' affair. Mr Hunt had argued that Granada had carried out a 'sustained news blackout' of his investigation which claimed that Mr Hamilton had been fitted up by Mr Fayed. He had taken exception to the Independent Television Commission brushing off his complaint, and has now been given leave to argue his case in the High Court. He has no legal representation, and no money.
Mr Hunt's little victory may well lead nowhere. But it is interesting that, apart from Press Gazette, the journalists' trade magazine, no one bothered to report it. There is a general view that Mr Hunt is - shall we say - eccentric, and there is also a reluctance to return to the complexities of the by now rather boring Neil Hamilton affair. But if the case should come to the High Court, the press will not be able to ignore it - unless it wishes to open itself to the very charges Mr Hunt has brought against Granada and the Independent Television Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|