The Guardian, which has provided excellent coverage throughout the inquiry, focused, in one report, on the words of Jeremy Gompertz, the barrister acting for the Kelly family.
Gompertz described the BBC’s Andrew Gilligan as an "unreliable" witness who was not to be trusted.
Firstly, he claimed Gilligan's chronology of events was "irreconcilable with the physical evidence" yielded by his personal electronic organiser after it was examined by experts.In an accompanying article, the Guardian also reported on the closing statement by Andrew Caldecott, the BBC’s counsel. These words of Caldecott’s stood out for me.
He said Gilligan had also said things that were irreconcilable with material he had produced in preparing his broadcasts on May 29, the broadcast themselves and the article in the Mail on Sunday he wrote on June 1.
Thirdly, he criticised Gilligan for losing his manuscript notes of his meeting with Dr Kelly in the Charing Cross hotel.
His final charge was that Gilligan had proved himself to be an "unreliable historian in other respects", including the changes in his accounts of a number of meetings.
The BBC regrets the inclusion of these statements [by Gilligan]. The BBC also accepts that Downing Street should have been notified before the broadcast.Why has it taken a parliamentary committee, the death of a government scientist and a judicial inquiry for the BBC to admit it was wrong? In my opinion, had it done so at the outset, Dr Kelly would almost certainly still be alive.
Reckless speculation aside, it is clear that this is not just a story about bad journalism (Gilligan), but also poor editorial control (Sambrook), detached management (Dyke) and lack of oversight (Davies).
We now know that Gavyn Davies and the rest of the BBC's board of governors backed Gilligan not because they had fully investigated the matter and come to a considered judgement, but because, as Davies told the Hutton inquiry, the governors believe they had a "public duty" to stand up to the government.
The BBC governors have a duty to oppose political interference from the government, but this was nothing of the sort. The government’s criticism of Gilligan’s report was not an attack on the BBC’s independence but on its credibility. Testimony to the Hutton inquiry has revealed that, in this instance at least, the BBC’s desire to stand up to the government, particularly on Iraq, overrode concerns about accuracy and impartiality.
I was astonished back in July when the governors decided to give their unequivocal backing to Gilligan's story, a decision which led to the release of this statement from Gavyn Davies on July 6.
In summary, the Governors are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the BBC upholds the highest standards of impartiality and accuracy. We are wholly satisfied that BBC journalists and their managers sought to maintain impartiality and accuracy during this episode.The words of Andrew Marr may yet come back to haunt the BBC. On July 20, the BBC's political editor wrote:
But if it turned out that Mr Gilligan was wrong - because that is the accusation being made in effect, that he sexed up what Dr Kelly said and broadcast an inaccurate report, and then the whole weight of the BBC hierarchy, right up to the governors swung behind him and his judgement - if that turned out to be wrong - and I say if - that would be extremely serious for the BBC all the way up.Indeed it would be.
