Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Prash Naik, Controller of Legal & Compliance, Channel 4, David Jordan, Director of
Editorial Policy and Standards, BBC, and Valerie Nazareth, Head of Programme Legal
Advice, BBC—Oral evidence (QQ 273–325)
David Jordan: Not in my experience, and I have edited as well as advised on
Panorama. These are not considerations that have stopped us carrying out the most difficult
kinds of investigations. Perhaps I may point to recent investigations in a care home. We have
done a few of those. They are as difficult as they get in terms of the vulnerabilities of those
concerned and the sensitivities of the situations. As far as I am aware, it has never stopped
us doing anything of that sort. I do not believe the existence of the code stops us from
doing public interest investigations. That is the critical thing. The newspapers might say
there is a chilling effect, but the chilling areas are ones we would not necessarily want to go
into. They have a different market and cater for different things. A public service
broadcaster has a very high public interest hurdle, which is not the kind of thing that
necessarily would be chilled because there is a strong public interest justification for what
we are doing and the reasons we decide to intrude on someone’s privacy.
Prash Naik: From Channel 4’s point of view, the two reasons we supplement the
code are: first, the parts of the code are the basic framework. There is no meat on the
bones, so effectively we add an extra layer. For example, in the case of secret filming, the
code requires that you have prima facie evidence; the story must be in the public interest;
you must have reasonable grounds to believe that you will gather more information; and it
must be essential for the authenticity and credibility of the story. That is all it says. What we
do internally is have a process of documentation in terms of obtaining permission to film
secretly in advance. Producers need to set out in writing the public interest; what the
criteria are; and what evidence they have already collected. That will give them permission
to undertake the filming. That is approved at quite a senior level.
Second, once we have filmed and collected the evidence it is reprocessed and
reviewed with the producers and lawyers. If it meets the criteria again it can be given
second stage permission for it to be broadcast. Again, it has to be documented. One of the
reasons is to have an audit trail, partly for legal and partly for regulatory claims. It is also
good practice. Therefore, that extra layer on top of the code is part of the best practice of
responsible broadcasters. I know that the BBC and other broadcasters do it as well. It is a
valuable tool.
As to your second point, it is also about creating a cultural ethos within our
independent sector and the broadcasters about ownership of compliance. It is not about
lawyers telling producers what they can and cannot do. Good programme makers embrace
compliance and understand the code; they can use it to their advantage and make better
programmes. It is not something that inhibits good-quality programme making. In terms of
investigative reporting, recently we have done two football Dispatches and something on
violence towards children in mosques and Madrassas. We are doing something on grooming
tonight. It has never inhibited our ability to do that. We have hurdles to get over, but they
are good, solid, journalistic hurdles and they serve a good purpose and strengthen our
journalism.
Q1174 George Eustice: Is there a difference between the designated investigative
journalist programmes that you do and your mainstream news? Quite often, broadcasters
rely quite heavily on the print press to do the dirty work and break news in whatever way
they can, and then follow it. If you look particularly at Sunday political programmes, it is all
about newspaper reviews. Do you have a different approach with your news? Is there a
reason why broadcast news is typically less aggressive?
166