British Brondeasting Corporation Media Centre Media Village White Cty 201 Wood Lane London WI2 77Q. Telephone 020 8743 8000 Fax 020 8008 1864 Emil ecu@bbeco.sk Editorial Complaints Unit Mr Jonathan Boyd Hunt abe 24 October 2007 Ref: FS/0700248 Dear Mr Hunt Andrew Marr’s History of Modern Britain, BBC2, 19 June 2007 Further to my letter of acknowledgement, I've now watched a recording of the programme and considered it in the light of your book, “Trial by Conspiracy”, as well as the points made in your letter to me and previous correspondence which you enclosed. I have also looked through, but not read exhaustively, the contents of the CD which you supplied. As you may be aware, the role of the Editorial Complaints Unit is to determine whether there has been a serious breach of the standards expressed in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. You have cited the guidelines on accuracy, and the standards they embody are certainly applicable - as are the BBC’s general commitments to accuracy and fairness set out in the section of the Editorial Guidelines headed “The BBC’s editorial values”, which can be read online at http://www. bbe.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/editorialvalues/. I should make clear straight away that I accept that the sequence of the programme in question, through its juxtaposition of words and images, does in effect affirm that Neil Hamilton had accepted cash for questions. Having read “Trial by Conspiracy”, I can readily see the basis for doubting this, However, the fact remains that Mohamed Fayed’s claim that he had paid Mr Hamilton to put down Parliamentary questions was accepted, not only by the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards after an inquiry, but also (and more significantly for my finding on your complaint) by the jury in the libel action brought against Mr Fayed by Mr Hamilton. It is of course legitimate to question the outcome of a trial where there is reason to believe that the verdict may have been unsound, and there have been many BBC programmes which have done exactly that. However, it is also legitimate for programmes to state matters in terms which reflect the verdict in any relevant court proceedings. If I were to find that doing so in this case was a breach of editorial standards, it would imply that no matter which had been decided by the courts could be presented without qualification in programmes if the verdict was in any way contested, Irrespective of the merits of the case you make for Mr Hamilton, I can’t reach a finding which would entail such consequences, and accordingly I don’t feel able to uphold your complaint. I can imagine how unwelcome to you this will be, but I hope you will understand my neeI'm returning your dossier of previous correspondence with the BBC, along with the CD, in case you wish to use them again. Please let me know if you also wish me to return “Trial by Conspiracy”, though I would like to keep it if you will allow me to. I think it bears re- reading Yours sincerely r ae IN ja Fraser Stee! Head of Editorial Complaints