POL00106920
POL00106920
_ ~ aan
bo
N
mame nmrnumannumnunnnum mmm mmm «
POL00106920
POL00106920
POL00106920
POL00106920
From: Rodric Williams
Mark Underwood!
5b Bourke
Melanie Corfield
Ps
i.
Ce: Jane MacLec “Tom Rei;
emek.com)" GRO en Susan BARTY}
emcek.com)' ia
Subject: FW: Response from the ECU [CMCK-UK.FID86735 10]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:23:54 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Letter_ftom_ECU_-_29_February_2016(211732315_l).PDF
Inline-Images: image001 jpg
All — please see the attached letter from the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, providing its provisional decision on
our complaint. We have until 14 March 2016 to comment before the decision is finalised.
The provisional decision is fairly conciliatory in tone, and acknowledges our position on a couple of points, e.g.
more detail on Richard Roll would have enabled a better critique of his contribution. Ultimately however (if
predictably), they find no breach of the BBC Guidelines.
The ECU says this is because Panorama provided enough to us to enable us to respond to Rall’s allegations. That
this is a different reason to the one put forward by Panorama (that we would put improper pressure on Roll) is
both comforting (in that our challenges to this may have been accepted) and frustrating (it’s another inconsistent
response) in equal measure. Also frustrating is that the ECU sidesteps the question of whether we were a
“contributor” for the purposes of the Guidelines, which is central to whether they were breached by Panorama.
Next Steps
I see three options:
Write a further adversarial letter, continuing to detail the breaches of Guldelines and the BBC’s inconsistent
responses to our complaints. I doubt this will take us much further forward,
Do nothing and let the BBC issue their final response. That would feel weak to me.
Write a short letter acknowledging but not accepting the findings, and noting that because it didn’t deal with it,
the ECU must have accepted we were a “contributor”. This should force the ECU to reconsider this point before
issuing the final decision, and will put a stake in the ground for how we should be treated if there is further
reporting. [therefore recommend this option.
We can try to appeal to the BBC Trust once we have the final decision. However, unless the final decision is
significantly different to the provisional one attached, I would not recommend this, particularly when we are now
likely to have achieved the main goals of complaining (make life difficult, make them think twice in the future).
POL00106920
POL00106920
As ever, any and all comments gratefully received.
Rod
From: Reid, Tom},
Sent: 01 March 2016 11:
To: Rodric Williams
Ce: BARTY, Susan
Subject: Response from the ECU [CMCK-UK.FID8673510]
Dear Rodtic,
We have received the attached response from the Editorial Complaints Unit with respect to our Panorama
complaint.
Richard Hutt appears to have taken significantly more time over this response compared with his first one.
There are some minor positives to be taken from the response. He has certainly acknowledged that
“information on the dates of Mr Roll’s employment and the nature of his duties would have allowed for a
critique of his knowledge and experience” - and, indeed, also refers to this later on in his letter */ can see
why your clients would have preferred to also be given the opportunity to criticise Mr Rolls’ perspective
Jrom the basis of the period in which he was employed”.
However, he goes on to conclude that, notwithstanding this point, there has been no breach of paragraphs g
6.4.25 and 6.4.1 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines.
While he touches on the question of what is a “contributor” for the purposes of paragraph 6.4.1, he goes to u
great lengths to avoid actually answering the question of whether POL was a contributor or not. Without
reaching a conclusion on this point, it is difficult to discern if there has been a breach of the Guidelines
because one does not know which Guidelines apply to your particular case. g
He goes on to state that, even if 6.4.1 were to apply, “it does not compel programme-makers to always reveal
the names of all prospective contributors in all circumstances”. This is not disputed. However, the BBC is B
supposed to provide such details “wwherever possible” and, although Mr Hutt states that one of the
circumstances in which it is appropriate to withhold such detail is “the protection of a confidential source”,
he wholly fails to explain why that is relevant here. The argument is somewhat circular, justifying keeping
the details of a source confidential in order to keep the source confidential. He fails to address the fact that i I
the argument put forward by Mr Head in this respect was flawed.
One of the fundamental problems with the responses that we have received from the BBC is their a
inconsistency. In essence, Mr Head said POL was never a contributor and therefore was not entitled to be
POL00106920
POL00106920
provided with the level of detail we requested. Mr Hutt, in contrast, refuses to answer the question of
whether POL was a contributor but says that sufficient detail was provided. It is difficult to understand how
the BBC, when making its programme, is making an appropriate assessment of whether it has provided
sufficient detail if it cannot determine which Guidelines, and hence which standards, apply.
Next Steps
This leaves the question of what to do next.
We have ten days (until 14 March 2016) to make representations to the ECU on its findings before a final
decision by the ECU is reached.
We could write a relatively short letter addressing some of the points above and, in particular, requesting that
the ECU clarifies:
I ) Why it was considered appropriate to withhold Mr Roll’s identity.
1 Whether POL is a contributor; and
B Once we receive the ECU’s final decision, it will be open to us to seek an appeal to the BBC Trust.
some questions of interpretation in play, the BBC is leading the argument towards the point where we are
I However, we appreciate that we are possibly approaching a point of diminishing returns. While there are
arguing about a difference of opinion and the likelihood of the BBC accepting our position is limited.
That said, the primary aim of making some noise and reducing the likelihood of similar errors being made in
the future has arguably been achieved. By progressing the complaint this far, it is likely that the BBC will
take greater caution to ensure compliance with the Guidelines in the future with respect to any content
featuring POL.
We would be happy to schedule a call to discuss further.
Kind regards,
Tom
POL00106920
POL00106920
Tom Reid
Associate
CMS Cameron MeKenna LLLP I Cannon Place, 78 Cannon Street} London ECAN 6AF I United Kingdom
yowvemeemeh com
yauvemstawnoweom,
AES ESO TOES EHS GE ESAS OH AEC E CEASE O HOGG SO IEEE EA o E
CMS has 60 offices around the world, located in Aberdeen, Algiers, Amsterdam, Antwerp. Barcelona, I I
Beijing, Belgrade, Berlin, Bratislava, Bristol, Brussels. Bucharest, Budapest, Casablanca, Cologne, Dubai,
Dusseldorf, Edinburgh, Frankfurt, Geneva, Glasgow, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kyiv. Leipzig, Lisbon, Ljubljana,
London, Luxembourg, Lyon, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, Moscow. Munich, Muscat, Paris, Podgorica,
Poznan, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Sarajevo, Seville, Shanghai, Sofia, Strasbourg, Stuttgart, Tehran, Utrecht, I
Vienna, Warsaw, Zagreb and Zurich.
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP is a member of CMS Legal Services EEG (CMS EEIG), a European
Economic Interest Grouping that coordinates an organisation of independent law firms. CMS EEIG provides
no client services. Such services are solely provided by CMS EEIG’s member firms in their respective
jurisdictions. CMS EEIG and each of its member firms are separate and legally distinct entities, and no such
entity has any authority to bind any other. CMS EEIG and each member firm are liable only for their own
acts or omissions and not those of each other. The brand name "CMS" and the term "firm" are used to refer
to some or all of the member firms or their offices, Further information can be found at www.cmslegal.com
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with
registration number OC310335. It is a body corporate which uses the word "partner" to refer to a member, or
an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. It is authorised and regulated by the I
Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales with SRA number 423370 and by the Law Society of
Scotland with registered number 47313. A list of members and their professional qualifications is open to
inspection at the registered office, Cannon Place. 78 Cannon Street, London EC4N 6AF. Members are either
solicitors or registered foreign lawyers, VAT registration number: 974 899 925. Further information about the I
firm can be found at wwww.cms-emek.com
The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If. you I
are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is
strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any
attachments) from your system. Notice: the firm does not accept service by e-mail of court proceedings, i I
other processes or formal notices of any kind without specific prior written agreement,