Complaint
A viewer complained a report about allegations of sexual assault and harassment at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate lacked due accuracy and due impartiality. The viewer argued the allegations were presented as established facts, the report portrayed the College and the Army unfairly, and neither the Army Foundation College nor the Army was given an appropriate opportunity to respond. The complaint also questioned whether it was responsible to report allegations which had not been proven in court. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards on due accuracy, due impartiality and right of reply.
Outcome
The ECU found the report clearly and repeatedly distinguished between allegations and proven facts. The introduction and report consistently attributed the claims to those making them, described them as allegations and explained recorded offences did not necessarily result in prosecutions. It also noted the Army had described the claims as serious and distressing.
The ECU did not agree viewers would have understood the allegations to be true or the report presumed the guilt of any individual. It considered viewers would have understood the distinction between allegations and proven facts and would not have been misled into believing the allegations had been established.
On the issue of a right of reply, the ECU found the report included responses from both the Army and the Ministry of Defence. Given the Army Foundation College operates as an Army training establishment, the inclusion of those responses amounted to an appropriate opportunity for reply.
The ECU also concluded the allegations raised legitimate public-interest questions about the welfare and safeguarding of young recruits at a publicly funded military training establishment. The public interest in reporting such allegations did not depend on misconduct having been established in court, provided the allegations were reported accurately and fairly.
Not Upheld