Complaint
This bulletin included a report that the police officer who shot Chris Kaba might not face disciplinary proceedings. A viewer objected to the report鈥檚 statement that the shooting occurred while Kaba was 鈥said to have tried to ram his way past police cars鈥, there being in fact no doubt about the matter, and complained that, while the report quoted the family or supporters of Mr Kaba as being upset or angry, it did not reflect the views of either the Metropolitan Police or the Police Federation. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 91福利社鈥檚 editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality.
Outcome
The ECU noted that it was established that Kaba, whose actions were recorded on body-worn police cameras, had attempted to escape by ramming vehicles in his path and agreed that, in view of the ongoing controversy about the matter, it was materially misleading for the report to have used a form of words which implied this might be in doubt. The complaint was therefore upheld in relation to accuracy.
The ECU also noted that due impartiality does not require every relevant view to be represented in every individual item. What is required will depend on the nature and context of the output. In this case, the bulletin reported a development concerning the misconduct proceedings and briefly included the Justice for Chris Kaba campaign鈥檚 reaction to it. It was not an examination of the wider arguments about Sergeant Blake鈥檚 actions or whether he should face criminal or disciplinary sanction, and there was no requirement for a police view to be represented. The complaint was not upheld in relation to impartiality.
Partly upheld
Further action
The finding was reported to the management of 91福利社 England and discussed with the editorial team concerned.