England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		6 November 2002

Mr Justice Newman :

1. The claimant, Jonathan Boyd Hunt, is a freelance journalist. In May l997 he and a colleague began an independent investigation into what has now come to be called “the cash for questions affair”. The cash referred to is alleged to have come from Mr Mohammed Fayed and to have been paid to MPs, including Mr Neil Hamilton, in return for questions being asked in the House of Commons.
2. These allegations first appeared in October l994, when The Guardian newspaper (“the Guardian”) published allegations that Mr Hamilton had accepted money from Mr Fayed’s lobbyist, Mr Ian Greer, to ask questions in the House of Commons. Granada Television Limited (“Granada”) reported the Guardian’s allegations in October l994. Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer commenced libel actions against the newspaper, which in September l996 they withdrew. On l May l997, at the General Election, Mr Hamilton lost his seat in Parliament.
3. By October l997, the claimant had compiled an interim report. Its existence coincided with the appearance of Mr Hamilton before the Standards Committee of the House of Commons. Mr Hamilton referred to the work of the claimant in these terms:

“This issue is exhaustively gone into in a document which I have not been responsible for producing (and I am grateful to the authors for pointing all this out to me), in a document which I shall be giving to the Committee, produced by two independent journalists wholly unconnected with me, who after the General Election, decided there was a story here worth investigating because they wanted to make a TV programme about it. They have been working at their own expense, without income, putting their own money from their own meagre resources into the investigation. I have given them free run of all the papers that everybody produced for the enquiry and they have gone on and done it ….”

In addition to it being supplied to the Standards Committee, the claimant supplied Granada with a copy and informed Granada that it was to be formally released at a Press Conference on 29 October 1997. Granada sent a journalist to the Press Conference, but not a camera crew, and did not report the occasion. On 6 November l997 the Standards Committee published its report and concluded that Mr Hamilton had received cash from Mr Fayed in brown paper envelopes, which had been handed to him.

4. Between November l997 and October l998 the claimant continued his investigations, the results were then translated into a book entitled, “Trial by Conspiracy”, which was launched at a Press Conference on l9 October l998. Granada, although aware of the launch, did not attend and did not report its launch. The book did receive attention in “The Daily Telegraph” newspaper, and in “The Spectator” magazine. In March l999, Mr Hamilton was given leave to bring his libel action, which commenced in November l999, but its pursuit resulted in its dismissal in December l999. In July 2000, the claimant complained to the Independent Television Commission (“ITC”).

The Complaint

5. The complaint is set out in a letter dated l3 July 2000, running to some 30 pages and encompassing various appendices, summaries, letters and a VHS video tape. The letter commenced with a summary, or conclusion, to the following effect:

“The Neil Hamilton affair serves as a case study of Granada Television’s reporting of a political controversy, revealing Granada in the worst possible light. The weight of evidence proves that Granada’s failure to discharge its obligations for impartial reporting of news is deliberate, showing it to be a politically biased organisation unwilling to report news dispassionately. The transgression is so grave, and sustained, it warrants the ITC commission considering the withdrawal of Granada’s television broadcasting licence at the first appropriate juncture.”

Some five pages of the letter under the heading “Our findings in essence” led to the conclusion:

“And that, in a nutshell, is the true story of the cash for questions affair.”

6. The “true story” can be broken down into various parts. Statements by the claimant as to his assessment of the respective reliability of Mr Fayed and Mr Hamilton as witnesses, and a particular suspicion as to what motive Mr Fayed had for making the allegations. In another part it attacked the role played by Peter Preston, the editor of The Guardian. It was alleged he had conducted himself both as to the content of the newspaper as well as in the litigation, in a way which was partial and biased in favour of Mr Fayed. It was said this had led Mr Preston to obstruct justice. The section on the essence of the matter, or “the true story”, contained a sustained attack on the integrity of Mr Preston and The Guardian. It was suggested that this partiality had led The Guardian and its lawyers to persuade Mr Fayed to choose witnesses to bolster his evidence, which was otherwise unreliable, and thereby the newspaper had been assisted in its defence of the libel action.
7. The complaint contains five pages, under the heading “The worth of our research, one aspect examined”, which invited the ITC to examine and test for itself the evidence said to have been uncovered by the claimant. A longer section of the letter, namely some ll pages, ran beneath the heading “The events that underpin my complaint against Granada Television”. Picking the matter up in October l997 and at the time of the interim report and thereafter, the claimant drew attention to the absence of Granada’s interest in the interim report through to January l998. At that date he was asked by a publisher to write a book about the Hamilton affair. His complaint records attempts made to have a meeting with The Guardian journalists and the then editor, Mr Rusbridger. He alleges how The Guardian, through one or other of its journalists, engaged in misconduct in making contact with his colleague Mr Keith Hill’s elderly mother.
8. The publication of the book was preceded by publicity “flyers” sent out to the Press, which led at least in part, to what the claimant regarded as a nasty smear campaign against him, participated in by Granada employees. Further particulars are given of a “smear job”, in which it was suggested The Guardian participated. The complaint points out that his book, whilst receiving attention on Northwest Tonight, on the North West BBC channel, received no attention from Granada at all.
9. The complaint devotes a specific section to a former Granada staff journalist, Mr Mark Hollingsworth, against whom the allegation was made that he was out to pervert the course of justice, like his fellow journalists and others connected with The Guardian. The letter went on to allege that Guardian journalists, including Hollingsworth, who co-wrote a political book with Mr Charles Tremayne, the Controller of Granada, were in effect in league together. This was stated to be an important matter for the Commission to appreciate when considering “the significance of Granada’s three year long news blackout on our investigation, and Granada’s other reporting with respect to Mohammed Fayed and The Guardian’s allegations against Neil Hamilton.”
10. The complaint went on to state:

“Unless there is draconian action taken by the Commission, which clearly ought to include news monitoring, it is certain that Granada will not report the new legal action of Neil Hamilton faithfully, nor the role of Mark Hollingsworth therein, nor Hollingsworth’s premeditation as demonstrated by his attendance at the launch of my book alongside his World in Action colleague David Leigh, there is also every prospect that Granada will try to influence ITN, as seems to have happened over the launch of “Trial by Conspiracy” in October l998. Unless the Commission takes action, it is impossible to envisage Granada reporting Hollingsworth’s former tie-up with Charles Tremayne and Granada. Nor can one see Granada reporting Hollingsworth’s alliance with Leigh, nor Leigh’s alliance with Granada, nor Leigh and Rusbridger’s role in the cash for questions affair – especially as Leigh produced the World in Action documentary on former Conservative MP Jonathan Aitken, which won Granada so many plaudits.”

11. The conclusion, set out on about one and a half pages, includes the following statements:

“The evidence shows that Granada’s news blackout on our work has been prompted by its alliance with The Guardian, revealing it to be a similar politically motivated organisation, unworthy of its broadcasting licence. Regardless of whatever spin Granada might care to put on these events, the stark facts cannot be denied. They are, in total, a damning indictment of Granada’s tenure, of its ITV franchise and its attitude to news journalism.

It is clear that the shared political beliefs of The Guardian and Granada Television have prompted their suppression of news about our investigation and our findings … I therefore call on the ITC Commission to respond to this complaint … The fact remains, the research undertaken by Malcolm Keith-Hill and myself has been assessed and vindicated by some of the best brains around, and is available to be examined further by any independent experts the Commission may appoint. We have stumbled across and uncovered an audacious, enduring, sprawling, criminal conspiracy, perpetrated by the most influential organisation in the British media, The Guardian, and spilling over into the legal profession and Parliament itself…. Granada Television ignored all calls to consider the evidence unearthed by Malcolm Keith-Hill and myself, despite their previous experience of my competence…. The Commission should take account of the fact that I have made no complaint about Granada’s behaviour in this affair previously, although there have been solid grounds for doing so on numerous occasions since Granada’s first obvious example of news censorship in October l997. The appendices, video tape, and the attached summary of events relating to this complaint, are proof enough of my restraint.”

12. The processing and consideration of the complaint extended from July 2000 until 23 February 2001, when Mr Stephen Perkins, then the Controller of Programme and Advertising Standards for the ITC, wrote to the claimant setting out his decision not to uphold the complaint. The letter contained the following passages material to the issue before the court:

“It should also be noted that a large part of your complaint deals with matters outside the remit of the ITC. The ITC cannot examine or discuss, for example, matters pertaining to newspapers, newspaper journalists or the BBC. In particular, of course, it is not for the ITC to comment on the merits or demerits of the arguments on either side of the case (that is, the Al Fayed- Hamilton affair). Your complaint focuses on Granada and, for the sake of this enquiry, we have considered Granada’s records of its transmissions, from 20 October 1994, (the date the first set of allegations against Neil Hamilton were published in The Guardian) to the present day. However, we should make the point that the requirement for due impartiality applies across Granada’s television output, including regional and network programming and network news and, therefore, ITN News and any other coverage available to viewers via Granada is relevant. This issue, as you point out, has been a major political controversy. Granada has reported it on at least 23 occasions, in its regional news service. It has not produced any material for the ITV network. The broadcaster also wishes to point out that it has only covered this as a new story, that is, it has not sought to investigate the quality of the claims and counter-claims, or in any sense to drive the story. While it has broadcast no details of your book and investigation, neither has it reported on the details of The Guardian’s book “Sleaze”.

Our programme code states that:

‘ Licensees may make programmes about any issues they choose’.

We therefore believe that Granada’s decision not to commission a documentary about your investigation is not in breach of the code.

It appears to us that from the evidence that Granada reported factually on the Hamilton story as it developed, on relevant occasions, stating Mr Hamilton’s position and giving coverage to his statements, press briefing and point of view. It appears that the broadcaster has reported every major development of the story. On various occasions, it had interviews (both live and pre-recorded) with Neil Hamilton. As you well know, Mr Hamilton at various times during this period produced new evidence that he believed would exonerate him. Granada covered these major developments along with explanations of how and why Mr Hamilton believed he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice …. The ITC does not involve itself in the decision making process of individual programmes, before transmission. Broadcasters are at liberty to make their own decisions on what to cover, and who to interview. However, the licensee must still fulfil its requirements under the programme code. In this case, it appears to us that while some broadcasters gave coverage to your new angle on the story, others (including, but not restricted to Granada) did not. We are satisfied that this decision did not in itself mean that Granada’s coverage overall was in breach of the Code….

In summary, therefore, we have concluded that the coverage of the Al Fayed-Hamilton affair, within the Granada service, did not involve a breach of due impartiality requirements and complied with the Programme Code.”

13. In summary, this decision letter provided the following reasons for refusing to uphold the complaint:

(1) that the complaint raised matters which were outside the remit of the ITC, in particular the complaints about newspapers, journalists and the BBC;

(2) that it was not for the ITC to comment on the merits or demerits of the arguments in the Al Fayed-Hamilton affair;

(3) that Granada had reported on the Al Fayed-Hamilton affair but had done so only as a news item and had not engaged in investigative journalism into the respective merits of each protagonist;

(4) that in reporting on the affair as a news item, Granada had given time to Mr Hamilton and reported his denials of the allegation. Mr Hamilton had been able to make his case as to why he was innocent, which as a matter of fact though not of report, had included his reference to the claimant’s research before the Standards Committee of the House of Commons;

(5) that the ITC had concluded that the matters which had comprised the claimant’s research, his interim report and his book, reflected a “new” angle on the Al Fayed-Hamilton story, but which did not give rise to an obligation on the part of Granada to report in order to satisfy its obligation under the programme code.

14. The claimant appealed. In support of the appeal he prepared a detailed document dated 3l March 2001. Like his complaint, the appeal document was carefully prepared and was organised in sections. The document repeated the nature of his complaint:

“The basis of my complaint is Granada Television’s consistent failure, since first being informed in July l997, to report in its news bulletins the existence and findings of an independent investigation conducted by myself and my colleague, TV producer/director Malcolm Keith-Hill, clearing former Conservative MP Mr Neil Hamilton of all essential allegations levelled against him by Mohammed Fayed and The Guardian Newspaper.”

The appeal document referred to the Broadcasting Act l990 and to the ITC Code made under that Act, to which provisions I must come in this judgment. The claimant identified the issues as follows:

“(1) Is the cash for questions affair a “political controversy”?

(2) If so, was it active during the period that Granada was informed about our investigation?

(3) Was Granada’s reporting of Neil Hamilton’s denials to the allegations sufficient to satisfy the definition “a full range” (as in the Act’s requirement that ‘justice must be done to a full range of significant views and perspectives’)?

(4) Does our investigation into the cash for questions affair represent

(i) a significant view?

(ii) a significant perspective?

(iii) a main differing view?

(5) If so, did Granada

(i) ensure that justice was done to our investigation?

(ii) give due weight to our investigation?

His answer then and now, in this court by counsel, Mr Berkeley QC, to both questions numbered 1 and 2 has been “yes”. No issue arises in connection with those suggested answers. The issue raised by the claimant’s question 3 has been addressed in the course of argument in slightly different terms. It has been accepted by the ITC that at the first stage (Mr Perkins) and on appeal, the ITC equated the position of the claimant and Mr Hamilton in the political controversy, in that no distinction was drawn between the position of the claimant and Mr Hamilton in deciding how to report the affair. It regarded the protestations of innocence on behalf of Mr Hamilton by the claimant as representing the same view as the protestations of innocence by Mr Hamilton himself. In answering the question in his appeal document the claimant contrasted the reporting of the case against Neil Hamilton, which was widely reported by the whole media, and particularly commented upon by The Guardian and others, with as he described it, the “cries of innocence which were all but solitary by Mr Neil Hamilton, having been left to fend for himself by the Conservative party hierarchy”. Thus he argued that when he and Mr Keith-Hill emerged with their investigation in favour of Mr Hamilton’s claims to innocence, Granada were, as he put it, under an immediate legal obligation to report that event with due weight. His answer to the fourth question was in substance that his investigation did represent a significant view and perspective or a main differing view within the meaning of the Code because he had uncovered copious indisputable evidence showing that “Neil Hamilton’s accusers lied and fabricated evidence against him in an audacious sprawling conspiracy to mask the fact that Fayed had made his allegations out of spite ….”

15. The claimant’s appeal was dealt with in an unprecedented manner by the ITC. The claimant requested that the matter be considered by the Members. Normally, the next level within the ITC which would have given consideration to the complaint was the senior management group. However the claimant had already sought to involve senior managers and thus in order to ensure a fresh and impartial basis for consideration it was decided that the senior management group should not be involved and that the allegation of a potential breach by Granada would be considered by the Members. The Members also granted the claimant an opportunity to make oral representations. A claimant had never previously appeared before the Members but, due to the volume and complexity of the claimant’s documentation, the Members considered that such an oral presentation would be of assistance. In order to investigate the potential breach a sub-committee was convened which comprised only those Members who could guarantee their impartiality through not having read any of the correspondence from either the claimant or Granada. After hearing the claimant’s oral evidence and considering all the papers and material which had been supplied, the sub-committee reported by a paper dated l7 July 2001 to the Members. The recommendation was that the Commission should reject the complaint. The conclusion was stated in three paragraphs as follows:

“11. It is not a matter for the Commission to judge the merits or demerits of Mr Boyd Hunt’s work or specifically whether Neil Hamilton was innocent of the allegations.

12. The sub-committee believe that Granada Television was able to maintain due impartiality on the Hamilton “cash for questions” affair without broadcasting Jonathan Boyd Hunt’s research. While this was covered on the regional BBC News and BBC News 24, and in the Daily Telegraph, it was not given sufficient credence to be reported on any terrestrial network television news service, Sky News or the majority of national newspapers.

13. Neil Hamilton’s position was adequately covered by Granada.”

16. The Chairman, Sir Robin Biggam, wrote to the claimant by letter dated 20 July 200l. He stated the conclusion to which they had come, namely that the coverage of the cash for questions affair had been in accordance with the requirement to maintain due impartiality in its news coverage. He stated:

“In particular, after careful consideration of the evidence, the Commission took the view that Granada reflected a sufficient range of points of view in reporting this case and that due impartiality was accordingly maintained in its news service. We are of course aware that you feel there was an obligation on Granada independently to examine the claims made by The Guardian. However the ITC does not have a statutory locus to intervene in editorial judgments of this nature. We took account of the fact that your research received some coverage on regional BBC News, BBC News 24 and in the Daily Telegraph. But we also noted that Granada Television was far from being the only news outlet not to cover it. It has not been, of course, for the Commission to reach a view on Neil Hamilton’s guilt or innocence, nor is the Commission’s decision in any way a judgment on the quality of your work. We appreciate the dedication you have shown over the years to this issue.”

The legal issue

17. Mr Justice Burton granted limited permission to the claimant to apply for judicial review on the ground that: “the defendant failed to comply with section 6(l)(c) and/or section 6(3)(b) of the Broadcasting Act l990, in that it reached a decision which was irrational”. It has therefore been common ground that the only issue before this court is a relatively simple and narrow one, namely:

Was the ITC’s decision that Granada did not breach the requirement of due impartiality by not reporting the claimant’s investigation one which no reasonable regulator could reach, properly addressing itself to the material before it?

The statutory background

18. The ITC is a statutory body established pursuant to section l(1) of the Broadcasting Act l990. Under section 2(1) of the Act one of the ITC’s functions is to regulate television programme services. Sections l4 to 22 of the Act empower the ITC to grant licences to provide television programme services on Channel 3 (more commonly known as ITV). It is an offence to provide such television programmes without a licence. Granada holds such a licence and provides a licensed television programme service to the North West of England.
19. Insofar as material to the issue on the application, section 6 of the Act provides:

“6. (1) The Commission shall do all that it can to secure that every licensed service complies with the following requirements, namely –

(a)……

(b) that any news given (in whatever form) in its programmes is presented with due accuracy and impartiality;

(c) that due impartiality is preserved on the part of the person providing the service with respect to matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy;

(d) …

(e) ….

(2) In applying subsection l(c) a series of programmes may be considered as a whole.

(3) The Commission shall –

(a) draw up, and from time to time review, a code giving guidance as to the rules to be observed in connection with the application of subsection l(c) in relation to licensed services; and

(b) do all that they can to secure that the provisions of the code are observed in the provision of licensed services;

and the Commission may make different provisions in the code for different cases or circumstances.

(4) ….

(5) ….

(6) The rules as specified shall, in addition, indicate to such extent as the Commission considers appropriate –

(a) what due impartiality does or does not require, either generally or in relation to particular circumstances;

(b) the ways in which impartiality may be achieved in connection with programmes of particular descriptions;

(c) ….

(d) ….

and those rules shall, in particular, indicate that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.”

THE CODE

20. Pursuant to section 3 of the Act the ITC has promulgated “The ITC Programme Code” (hereafter “the Code”), which has been revised from time to time. Section 3 of the Code is headed “Impartiality”. The commentary makes it plain that whilst the Code is made pursuant to section 6(3)(a) of the Act, the guidelines also relate to the requirement under section 6(1)(b) that news be presented with due accuracy and impartiality. The Code states, as was pointed out in the decision letter,

“Licensees may make programmes about any issues they choose. This freedom is limited only by the obligations of fairness and respect for truth, two qualities which are essential to all factually based programmes, whether on controversial topics or not. Impartiality does not mean that broadcasters have to be absolutely neutral on every controversial issue, but they should deal even-handedly with opposing points of view in the arena of democratic debate. Opinions should be clearly distinguished from fact”.

As to due impartiality it points out:

“The term “due” is significant; it should be interpreted as meaning adequate or appropriate to the nature of the subject and the type of programme. While the requirement of due impartiality applies to all areas of controversy covered by the Act, it does not mean that balance is required in any simple mathematical sense or that equal time must be given to each opposing point of view, nor does it require absolute neutrality on every issue. Judgment will always be called for. The requirement will also vary with the type of programme; the considerations applying to drama, for example, are different from those applying to current affairs programmes. News and personal view programmes are also different in kind and bound by separate sets of rules.

21. Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 have received close attention in the course of argument and I shall set them out.

“3.4 Programme content: ‘major matters’

The Act requires the Code to take particular account of the impartiality due to major matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy.

What is a major matter will vary according to the current public and political agenda, whether national or regional. It would in most circumstances include political or industrial issues of national importance, such as a nationwide strike or significant legislation currently passing through Parliament. For licensees serving a regional audience, it would also include issues of comparable importance within their region. Clearly, a regional newsroom will have a different set of priorities from that of a network programme serving the nation as a whole.

In dealing with major matters of controversy, 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.

The treatment of major matters should not obscure the fact that due impartiality is required on all matters of political or industrial controversy or current public policy. The ways in which this may be achieved in relation to different programme types is dealt with in the following sections.

3.5 News

In addition to the general requirements relating to matters of political or industrial controversy or current public policy, the Act requires that any news, given in whatever form, must be presented with due accuracy and impartiality.

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. Editorial discretion will determine whether a range of conflicting views is included within a single news item or whether it is acceptable to spread them over a series of bulletins.

CONCLUSIONS

22. The argument turned principally on whether, having regard to the terms of the Code, a decision maker could rationally conclude that the claimant’s investigations did not represent a differing view on the major political controversy which, it was common ground, the Al Fayed/Hamilton dispute presented. The ITC characterised the investigations as a “new angle on the story” but nevertheless concluded it was open to Granada to limit its response to them in the broadcasting of the dispute by equating these to Mr Hamilton’s role in the dispute.
23. This aspect of the issue between the parties is largely one of characterisation. In one sense it is beyond argument that the claimant’s viewpoint was precisely the same as Mr Hamilton’s. The shared viewpoint was that Mr Hamilton was innocent and Mr Al Fayed was a liar. There can be room for argument only if the claimant’s viewpoint is characterised, not by reference to the shared conclusion on the innocence of Mr Hamilton, but by reference to the reasons advanced for the conclusion. The claimant is not suggesting due impartiality required Granada simply to report that some people, whether named or not, supported Mr Hamilton’s assertions of innocence. His complaint is that Granada did not report his conclusions in connection with the affair, which he asserted constituted the “true story”.
24. Thus, whilst the claimant has identified the major political controversy as the cash for questions affair, if on a true analysis he is aggrieved, not because there has been lack of due impartiality in connection with reporting that affair as characterised by Granada, but because there has been a failure to report the existence of a politically motivated criminal conspiracy perpetuated by the Guardian and “spilling over into the legal profession and Parliament …”, which in his views amounts to “the true story” or character of the affair. Mr Hamilton made reference to the claimant’s investigations at the Standards Committee, but it is not suggested that he adopted the reasons advanced by the claimant as his case for his innocence. At his libel action against Mr Al Fayed the vast majority of the investigations were not raised by counsel acting on his behalf. The shared viewpoint of Mr Hamilton and the claimant was the former’s innocence, not the latter’s investigations. Despite this disparity it was argued Granada was obliged to report the effect of the investigations and not entitled to limit itself to the characterisation of the affair as a dispute between Mr Hamilton and Mr Fayed.
25. The question whether the requirement of due impartiality has been met by a broadcaster has to be examined by reference to the character of the political controversy which the broadcaster has selected as suitable to be reported. Unless this is taken as the starting point the independence of the broadcaster will be at risk of being undermined by anyone who desires them to report it according to a different character or emphasis. There is as much importance in the independence of broadcasters being upheld as there is in the requirement that due impartiality is preserved in matters which are broadcast. In my judgment the Code puts the matter in a way which I cannot better:

“3.1 Objectives

Licensees may make programmes about any issues they choose. This freedom is limited only by the obligations of fairness and a respect for truth, two qualities which are essential to all factually-based programmes, whether on ‘controversial’ topics or not”.

If the freedom to choose the issue is to be given full effect then it extends to the choice the broadcaster makes in defining and limiting the issue. Having made the choice the broadcaster is then required to exercise due impartiality in handling the issue which has been identified.

26. In this instance Granada chose to treat the cash for questions affair as a news item and reported it as such when it adjudged it worthwhile to do so. It treated Mr Al Fayed and Mr Hamilton as the protagonists in the dispute. The political colour of the controversy flowed from Mr Hamilton’s status as an MP and prominent member of the Conservative Party. It reported in a factual manner without attempting to investigate the merits of the case for one or other of the protagonists. It would have been difficult to do so within the context of news reporting and constraints of time are matters for the broadcaster to assess and fulfil.
27. The extent to which the claimant’s investigations went beyond the parameters of the issue as set by the manner and content of Granada’s reporting are obvious and I have summarised them in this judgment, in particular, in paragraph 23 above. The ITC’s decision letter dated 23 February 200l correctly stated that the complaint dealt with matter outside the remit of the ITC, “ … matters pertaining to newspapers, newspaper journalists or the BBC. In particular it is of course not for the ITC to comment on the merits or demerits of the arguments on either side of the case. (i.e. the Al Fayed/Hamilton affair)” In my judgment these considerations are equally applicable to the manner in which Granada was free to respond as a broadcaster to the claimant’s investigations and to set its own parameters for the reporting of the affair.
28. It appears equally obvious that a broadcaster must have the freedom to form its own view as to the merits of any investigations brought to its attention. The ITC was correct to point out that the claimant had misconceived the purpose of the ITC’s powers insofar as he had urged it to examine and consider the merits of his work and the strength of his credentials. In truth he did so, as his argument has suggested, because he regarded his work as sufficiently valuable to meet the requirement that he was presenting a “significant” view. In this court the ITC has expressly disavowed making any comment on the quality of the work or the status or credentials of the claimant. It was right to do so because they are irrelevant to the legal issue but I have no doubt they are a significant cause for the sense of grievance felt by the claimant. It is plain that much of the momentum behind this application stems from his conviction that his work has been harshly and unfairly judged on its merits. Nothing in this judgment must be taken as expressing any view on the merits of his work or his status and reputation as a journalist.
29. In my judgment it is impossible to conclude that the ITC was not entitled to conclude that Granada had been at liberty to regard the claimant’s view and Mr Hamilton’s view on the cash for questions affair as the same. The ITC was entitled to conclude that the treatment of the controversy as a news item was a relevant consideration in connection with the discharge of broadcasting duties under the Code. The claimant (see the Complaint) voiced his complaint as being in connection with the reporting of news.
30. The ITC were entitled to take into account the fact that whilst some broadcasters had reported the claimant’s views others had not. Such a consideration served to underline the relevance of editorial independence and judgment in news reporting.
31. I have no doubt that this judgment will be the source of great disappointment to the claimant. I have, at his request, looked at the video and have seen the earnestness and firm conviction with which he holds the opinion that he has uncovered something of political moment. But the strength with which he holds his views cannot alter their content and effect. On the contrary, the more one sees and reads, the greater the disparity between his event of political moment and that which Granada regarded as the event surrounding Mr Hamilton. I am left in no doubt that the ITC were entitled to conclude that in reporting the view that the allegations against Mr Hamilton were ill founded the requirement of due impartiality did not require Granada also to report the claimant’s view.
32. Having regard to the breadth of discretion accorded to the ITC (see R v Radio Authority, ex parte Bull [1998] QB 294, 309E], its treatment of the complaint, which was comprehensive and fair and further, having regard to the reasons it has advanced for its decision, this claim for judicial review must fail.