Twelve days in March
It鈥檚 not often at Westminster that you run up against the law. In normal times, covering politics is both important and exciting without the need to dodge bullets or jail. Which is why the Westminster team investigating cash for honours found itself swimming 鈥 or at least paddling 鈥 in uncharted waters, when the police asked the Attorney General to get an injunction to gag us from broadcasting our story.
It started on a Thursday morning 鈥 Thursday 1 March - when Reeta Chakrabarti rang me with a good story from an excellent source. It took us six days to get our full story out; and another six to broadcast the story of the gagging. So 12 busy, frustrating and challenging days. Here鈥檚 how it felt from the inside:
鈥 Day 1. Reeta gets the story. It鈥檚 a significant new development 鈥 one of Tony Blair鈥檚 top aides (Ruth Turner) has claimed that Lord Levy, the PM鈥檚 chief fundraiser, put to her a version of events about his role in the drawing up of the honours list which she felt was untrue. With Nick Robinson on board, we go in search of a second source. Late in the day we get that, and begin discussions with our News bosses and the 大象传媒 lawyers about putting it on air. But there isn鈥檛 time to approach the various people at the centre of the story. So we put the story on hold and go to the pub, where we studiously avoid saying anything about what we鈥檝e been working on so frantically 鈥 the walls of the Marquis of Granby have ears鈥
鈥 Day 2. Start asking for reaction from the people involved. Lord Levy denies any wrongdoing. More talks with News bosses and lawyers. Police tell us they don鈥檛 want us to broadcast. We tell them we intend to broadcast. Police go to the Attorney General to seek injunction. At 2130 the news comes through that we鈥檝e been gagged. So instead of Nick leading the Ten O'Clock News with our cash for honours story, he has to restrict himself to a brief account of the injunction, which must have been tantalising to the viewers 鈥 鈥淲e鈥檝e got a good story but we can鈥檛 tell you what it is鈥.鈥
鈥 Day 3. Rumours grow this Saturday that the Sunday papers are on to our story. How do they know? Reeta and Carole Walker try to find out what they have. From home, I spend the evening on the phone (while my wife parties at a Fratellis concert in Brixton, and my house is wrecked by seven children - my four plus three sleepover friends.) Get the newspaper first editions in Television Centre about 9pm. Sunday Telegraph and Mail on Sunday have parts of our story. Discuss with lawyers what we can broadcast, which ends up as another tease: 鈥漈he 大象传媒 can now reveal some details鈥.鈥
鈥 Day 4. Frustration. Lots of detail in various Sunday papers 鈥 we know more but our injunction prevents us from broadcasting that, or the detail of what鈥檚 in the papers.
鈥 Day 5. Partial victory. Our lawyers win a 鈥渧ariation鈥 of the injunction allowing us to report who鈥檚 involved in the story鈥 Ruth Turner, Lord Levy and Jonathan Powell, the PM鈥檚 Chief of Staff鈥ut not what it鈥檚 about. Frustration piles on frustration at ten to ten when we get sight of the splash in the Guardian which has more detail than we鈥檙e able to broadcast. The Attorney General had attempted to gag them too but a judge ruled there was no point, once it became clear the papers were already printed and in the delivery vans. Many conversations with News bosses and lawyers about what we can report, and whether we can get a judge out of bed to lift our injunction. Eventually agree we can report that the Guardian has a story鈥 but not what鈥檚 in it.
鈥 Day 6. Victory! Our lawyers go back to court again 鈥 with Nick Robinson in tow. We are allowed to broadcast our original story 鈥 Nick goes live on N24 from the back of a taxi on return journey to Westminster.
鈥 Day 7. All the papers run our story. Attorney General says 鈥渏e ne regrette rien鈥 (sort of). Denies he has acted for political reasons
鈥 Day 8. 大象传媒 lawyers back in court to argue for the right to report the original reasons for our injunction. Decision delayed till next day.
鈥 Day 9. Judge rules against us.
鈥 Days 10, 11. Weekend respite.
鈥 Day 12. 大象传媒 lawyers take our case to the Appeal Court and - finally - win the right to broadcast the reasons why the injunction was sought and granted in the first place鈥 that the police believed that broadcasting details of the document we鈥檇 learned about could hamper their inquiry. Some interesting detail of what was said in court also revealed.
So those were our 12 days in March, in which we fought for the right to broadcast an important story, and 鈥 eventually 鈥 won.
At the end of last week, Assistant Commissioner John Yates 鈥 the man running the cash for honours inquiry 鈥 told MPs it would be unrealistic for him to set a deadline for the end of his investigation. What next, I wonder鈥.
Comments
Frankly you should have broke the news instantly on N24 as soon as the Police asked you not to report it.
That would have repaired much of the damage caused by Mark Byford and Lord Ryder's disgraceful apology post Dyke's sacking which saw the credibility of 大象传媒 News badly damaged.
Yes, quite a chronic-call, eh?
I guess the very great risk of your goodselves blustering through sensational, on-the-fly, audio-video bites on N24 was more than a legal mind could cope with! And yet, it was old news - via other outlets - long before the kercheif was finally removed. I tend to agree with your take on a political motive - rather than a 'purely' legal objection. I think it rather ironic that the paper-based exposee got away with it because the investment in paper had already been made! If you guys were not quite so near the sharp end (and had more of a carbon footprint!) you would have leaked a bit more of the story before the veil came down!
Ah well! You win the race most of the time! Dry those crusty crocodile tears; think of all the extra hours of 'news' you've wrung from that questionable gag! :-)
Oh to have been a fly on the wall in Millbank and Television Centre...
Ironically I first heard of the gagging through the 大象传媒 - can't remember whether it was on News 24, the Ten, or Five Live.
Good to see the Beeb stick by its guns - even it meant pursuing the legal channels - to get the story on air.
I've always suspected that when 'high profile' figures such as Lord Levy try to prevent such stories coming out in the media, that they're actually hiding a lot more than they're letting on. Of course Lord Levy knew full well the outcry if Ms Turner had publicly contested his version of events, not only would all hell have broken lose, but also that his reputation would be seriously undermiined.
No doubt Paul Abbot will be basing his next political thriller on this sequence...
Wow....intriguing story. I'll have to make sure to stop by the Marquis Granby next time I am in London....
Tells you all you need to know about this government, doesn't it?
What a bunch of maroons. Not exactly Scotland Yard, more like the Keystone Kops.
"So we put the story on hold and go to the pub where we studiously avoid saying anything about what we've been working on so frantically - the walls of the Marquis of Granby have ears."
Did you have Nick Robinson with you? I'll bet you did. Is that the bar where the drunk threw a plate of curried chips at him because he hadn't brought the troops home from Iraq yet? Now how do you suppose a drunk knew that Nick Robinson was the political editor of the 大象传媒? Does he wear a sign on his chest or something? More likely a few pints of Bass ale and swig or three of Glenlivet is all it really took and then nobody in the bar could help but knowing, that's my guess. How did the police find out that you were going to publish this story in the first place? Do you clear all of your stories through them before they are published? Did you have any clue that there was an ongoing criminal investigation? Did you leave that part of the story out? If not, why did you blab that you were going on air with it to everyone, why didn't you just do it? More likely you told the police unnecessarily and provoked their legal action for an injunction yourselves. So what do you want, a medal for getting yourselves out of the jam you created? What a bunch of maroons.
You have got the wrong story here. The draft email is part ofteh evidence gathered during the investigation which has yet to be completed, let alone possible court action decided upon. Providing this information to the public by the 大象传媒 is completely irresponsible.
The real story, which you have not attempted to address, is who it is who is so keen to get the email into the public domain that they leak it to the 大象传媒, and then when that is blocked by the injuction they leak it The Guardian and other papers. So who is desperate enough to do this? I have seen conjecture that Levy would gain if the publication of the email meant that a fair trial was impssible: but this is a high-risk strategy. Much more likely, especially since if it was a draft email how many people would know about it, is that it was the author: she may have felt under threat. Bizarreelym, then, 大象传媒 held in its hands the information about who the source was, but chose instead to follow a different story.
Good show of tenacity and determination by the Beeb...
Nick R has found some political teeth since his encounter with Pres. Bush, he probably relised then the soundbites are not answers to any political considerations.
I suspect this story will come to nothing. My prediction is that it will drag out until Tony Blair steps down and the CPS decide there is no point in pursuing the case further.
Then Politicians will ensure they strip the Police of power to investigate them, politicians and Prime Ministers will be back in free-spin mode with little media or mode of accounting for what they do or have done.
Is it not satisfying when after twelve days of nerve-wrecking suspense, one emerges as a winner and is able to do what one has been working for meticulously, religiously and sincerely? When 大象传媒 or any other media comes up with new revelations and completely unknown facts, it feels it as its duty to make the people aware of it. No media can be treated as the judge in these cases nor can their words be regarded as the last and the final one. Yet, they are the platform for initiating the dialogue. This right of the media shall never be tried to be curtailed, that too on irrelevant or frivolous grounds.
It is good that 大象传媒 finally won this battle.
Amitabh Thakur,
Lucknow,
India