From the UK Press Gazette, 13.5.04

BBC probe fails to end post-Hutton anger
By Walé Azeez

Senior BBC journalists who took part in an internal disciplinary inquiry
into the events that led up to the Today programme’s 29 May broadcast of
the “sexed-up dossier” are questioning its legality and are considering
appeals against the process, Press Gazette has learnt.

Although the BBC announced this week that no participants — including
director of news Richard Sambrook, deputy Mark Damazer, head of radio
news Stephen Mitchell and Today editor Kevin Marsh — would be dismissed
from the corporation, the probe is said to have caused bitterness.

A BBC executive, who declined to be named, said the inquiry had been “an
absolutely crass way to try to learn any lessons and was always destined
to put one person against another. It has been damaging for morale and
led people to think: ‘This is not the BBC I thought I was working for.’”
It is understood that participants, some of whom had their own legal
representation, registered their objections to the procedure and their
belief that BBC’s disciplinary guidelines were breached in setting up the
inquiry.

The role of BBC policy and legal director Caroline Thomson in the
disciplinary hearing was also seen as contentious.

She was said to be central to the BBC’s defence strategy during the
Hutton Inquiry, yet later found herself to be sitting in judgement on
everything that led up to it.

“She was also in Greg Dyke’s office while all of this was going on — she
was a player, certainly as much as anybody was, in deciding the strategy
at the Hutton Inquiry itself. She was part and parcel of that,” the
source said.

“Her conflict of interest would obviously be something that somebody
might want to look at properly.”

However, the BBC said it was “wrong” to suggest any conflict. “She was
not involved in compiling the legal strategy for the Hutton Inquiry,” a
spokeswoman insisted. One senior BBC journalist familiar with the
proceedings told Press Gazette that “if any of the people do appeal, that
will be the first grounds. The process was not in line with the BBC’s own
guidelines. The guidelines are very clear about putting specific charges
with specific evidence, and that was never done.”

The source also said the BBC had not clarified the limits of the
disciplinary hearings. “Was it being confined to the process before the
pieces went out? Or to the handling of the complaint? It was never made
clear.

“There was a degree of dishonesty about it. They were always very cagey
about calling it a disciplinary inquiry or hearing, but when you saw the
documents relating to it, it made it absolutely clear that’s what it
was.”

This week the BBC announced Thomson and personnel director Stephen
Dando’s conclusion was that former Today correspondent Andrew Gilligan
had not followed a core script that was “properly prepared and cleared in
line with normal production practices in place at the time”, in effect
laying the blame at the his door.

However, Gilligan said the inquiry had become “an embarrassment to all
concerned”. He knew that, as the most junior person involved, he would be
made “the sin-eater for the failings of others”, he told Press Gazette.

The editorial inquiry led by Ron Neil, former director of news and
current affairs, into lessons from the Hutton Inquiry is expected to
report in June.