The Shipman Inquiry - Decision on Broadcasting Requests

Decision on Broadcasting Requests.
11 June 2001

At the Inquiry’s Opening Meeting on 10th May, I explained that I had received a number of requests from organisations wishing to broadcast the proceedings or part of them. The BBC and ITN wished for a live feed of sound and pictures from all public sessions of the Inquiry. The BBC’s suggestion was that the CCTV film to be transmitted to the Public Viewing Room at Hyde Library should be of broadcast quality and should be made available to them and other organisations. The feed would be used for live or recorded broadcasts. The BBC also sought permission to rebroadcast the proceedings on its website and to provide an archive of all sessions. Dennis Woolf Productions requested facilities to record and transmit the evidence with a view to broadcasting edited reports as part of a film about the Inquiry and also to take a feed from the CCTV film for continuous broadcasting live on a website. If those requests are to be refused, Mr Woolf has requested a sound feed.
My initial reaction was to refuse such requests, principally because I considered that broadcasting would increase the pressure upon the vulnerable witnesses who would have to give evidence about extremely distressing events. However, I decided to invite the opinion of those most likely to be affected by my decision. I have now received representations from a number of parties. As well as three media organisations, I have heard from 102 relatives of known or suspected victims of Shipman. I have received eight other responses, from those with a direct interest in the Inquiry. The media organisations stressed that they are obliged to conform to codes of practice which require them to respect witnesses’ privacy and dignity. They must have special regard for the bereaved. Amongst the families, there is general agreement in support of the provisional view which I expressed at the Public Meeting, that Phase 1 should not be broadcast. The reasons I then gave were widely endorsed. My view is that even if the codes of practice are fully observed, broadcasting would cause additional upset for some witnesses speaking about distressing matters. On Phase 1, therefore, my decision is clear. There will be no broadcasting.
It remains for me to consider the requests for broadcasting of Phases 2 and 3. Before rehearsing the arguments, I should set out the provisions to be made for the public and media.

Members of the public will be able to attend the hearings at Manchester Town Hall. About 150 seats will be available every day but this number could be increased if regular demand warranted it.
Proceedings will be relayed to the Public Viewing Room at Hyde Library by CCTV for those who would find attendance at Manchester difficult or inconvenient.
Facilities for the media at Manchester Town Hall should enable them to carry out their important duties without difficulty. There are 30 media positions in the hearing room and a media annex where a sound and vision relay and the document retrieval screens will be available.
The Inquiry website is now operational. During the hearings, the statements received in evidence, the documents considered and a transcript of the oral evidence will be posted on the site. The website will be available to the public in the IT library which will be provided next to the hearing room.

As I indicated in my opening statement on 10th May, there are good arguments in favour of and against broadcasting the proceedings. In favour, the following arguments have been advanced, some by the broadcasting organisations and some by members of the families of known or suspected victims:
1. As a matter of principle, the proceedings of a public inquiry should be made readily accessible to the public.
2. Broadcasting would help the families of victims and the general public to be fully informed.
3. Broadcasting would bring colour and immediacy to reports of proceedings, which would otherwise comprise a second-hand account. This additional dimension would stimulate interest in the Inquiry.
4. Many people do not have access to the Internet and will not be able to take advantage of the Inquiry’s website.
5. Filming would help to ensure that nothing is covered up.
Those who oppose broadcasting submit that:
1. Broadcasting would place additional pressure on witnesses who may be very nervous about giving evidence and about the criticism they might face.
2. Some witnesses might ‘play up’ to the cameras and take advantage of the opportunity to address the wider audience.
3. Some witnesses might be inhibited from speaking out frankly and may be more defensive than they otherwise would be.
4. There would be a risk of distortion of the evidence or of evidence being presented out of its true context. Reports would be made of ‘newsworthy’ or ‘sensational’ parts of the evidence which were unrepresentative of the whole of the evidence on that topic.
5. Expert witnesses might be damaged by the use of selectively edited video footage of their evidence, which might be used against them on future occasions.
6. Nothing positive would be gained by broadcasting.
My observations on these submissions are as follows:
- The broadcasting organisations stress the Inquiry is a matter of great public interest. Both the BBC and ITN submissions described the public interest as ‘overwhelming’. It may be but at any rate it is plain that there is a great deal of interest in the North West. The issues are of considerable public importance. I accept that there are likely to be many occasions when news organisations would give some prominence to the Inquiry proceedings. However, it is my opinion, based on my own experience, that news coverage by broadcasting organisations will be focused on what they regard as interesting or newsworthy. I cannot accept that permission to broadcast will, in practice, make a significant difference to the availability of high quality reporting of the Inquiry. Court proceedings are fully reported every day by reporters sitting in court. It is only the ‘drama’ of the sight and sound of the witness which is lost. All information given in the hearings will be available to report.
- I recognise that there will be people who do not have direct access to the Internet and who cannot avail themselves of the IT library in Manchester but they will have access to reports on radio, television and in newspapers prepared by those who do.
- I share the concern of the families that no failure on the part of any responsible person or organisation should be covered up. Indeed I am fully committed to ensuring that the actions of those with responsibility should be thoroughly investigated. However, I cannot accept the premise that the ability to broadcast in any way assists the process of thorough investigation. If anything, I think there is some risk that potential witnesses might be deterred from volunteering information by the prospect of their evidence being broadcast. But in any event, there will be the most thorough possible investigation whatever my decision on broadcasting.
- I am concerned about the additional stress to which many witnesses would be subjected. Many respondents make the point that it is right that the relatives (mainly giving evidence in Phase 1) should be shielded from the additional stress of having their evidence broadcast but suggest that the same consideration should not be extended to the witnesses who will appear in Phase 2. I would agree with that argument if the Phase 2 witnesses were all people such as doctors and police officers who have defined responsibilities and the training to fulfil them. But they are not. There will be many people giving evidence in Phase 2 whose responsibilities are by no means clear and who received no training to equip them to deal with the kind of circumstances which arose. These people feel vulnerable and say that broadcasting will greatly increase the pressure upon them. I can understand why.
- I doubt that witnesses are likely to be significantly less frank or more defensive if their testimony is being broadcast. The sense of occasion will be very great in any event. In general, I think that a sense of occasion makes people careful to be strictly honest and accurate.
- I do not think there is any real danger that witnesses would seek to play up to the cameras. There might be an odd one who does but I do not regard this as an important factor.
- On the issue of distortion, the broadcasters say that they are under a duty to present a balanced picture. The same is true of newspapers. Yet, it is a common experience of those who have played a part in an event to feel that the reporting of it has not been balanced. I accept the submission that broadcasting carries a risk that the material will be presented out of context and with undue emphasis on interesting or sensational parts of the evidence. The same is true of reporting by newspapers. I do not regard this risk as a major factor in my decision.
In reaching a decision I have taken account of the decisions taken by other inquiries. Sir Richard Scott refused broadcasting rights in the Arms to Iraq Inquiry. Lord Phillips in the BSE Inquiry refused permission to film but allowed sound recording of the proceedings. In the Southall Rail Inquiry, Mr John Uff QC allowed broadcasting rights, subject to a protocol and reported that this gave rise to no problems, although media interest was not great, once the hearings were under way. At the Ladbroke Grove Inquiry, Lord Cullen refused permission to broadcast, save for opening submissions. Finally, Professor Kennedy at the Bristol Inquiry refused all broadcasting saying that regard must be had for the feelings of the witnesses and the sensitivity of the subject matter.
Taking all factors into account, I have come to the conclusion that the additional distress and anxiety which is likely to be suffered by non-professional witnesses outweighs the public interest in seeing the faces and hearing the voices of witnesses. My decision is that Phase 2 will not be broadcast. I very much doubt that there would be sufficient interest to warrant the broadcasting of Phase 3. However, if the media organisations wish to apply, I will give their applications further consideration.
I turn to deal with Dennis Woolf Productions’ separate application for permission to receive a sound feed for use in a documentary film to be used after the Inquiry is over. I am reluctant to allow one organisation a facility that I am not prepared to grant another. I am aware that Mr Woolf has made documentary films in the past relying on the transcripts of evidence. These have been quite adequate for his purposes. The public interest is served by being informed of the words spoken. In my view, the modest additional advantage of hearing the actual voices is an insufficient public interest to outweigh the disadvantages to the witnesses who have to take part.
In his submission, Mr Dennis Woolf made reference to the Human Rights Act. I think he had in mind Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrines the right to freedom of expression and includes a right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority. Mr Woolf drew attention to the judgement of Lord Justice Kennedy on the judicial review of the Secretary of State for Health’s decision to set up a private inquiry into the Shipman case. Lord Justice Kennedy said that it appeared that the decision to hold the Inquiry in private would amount to a breach of Article 10. However, the issue there was whether the evidence should be heard in public at all, not whether it should be broadcast as well as being heard in public. I do not think that Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights has any bearing on my present decision. It is inconceivable that Article 10 entitles a citizen to receive broadcast film of all public events. The Inquiry proceedings will be held in public with media access and in my view it cannot be said that my decision to refuse permission to broadcast is interference by a public authority with a citizen’s right to receive information about the Inquiry.