ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½

In relation to impartiality, while recognising that the families of the victims considered other aspects of the case more worthy of investigation, the ECU considered that the programme’s focus on new evidence about failures by the relevant authorities in their efforts to deal with or treat Mr Calocane served a clear public interest, highlighting as it did their failure to take actions which could have prevented the killings.  The ECU recognised the potential for distress to the families arising from a programme which revisited the events of June 2023, but did not consider this created an obligation to offer them a right to reply, as the programme contained nothing which could be viewed as critical of them. 

In relation to accuracy, the ECU noted that the programme had said the families had called for a review of Mr Calocane’s sentence due to its leniency, when it was in fact the Attorney-General who had sought the review. However, the ECU noted that Barnaby Webber’s mother had publicly expressed her dissatisfaction with the original verdict, had responded favourably to the decision to reopen the case and had also attacked the Appeal Court’s decision not to increase Mr Calocane’s sentence.  In the light of this, the ECU concluded that the incorrect attribution of the request for review of Mr Calocane’s sentence would not have misled viewers on any material point and did not constitute a breach of the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½â€™s standards of due accuracy.

In relation to contact with the families before transmission, the relevant section of the Editorial Guidelines says:

So far as is reasonably practicable, surviving victims or the immediate families of dead people who are to feature in the programme should normally be notified of our plans. We should only proceed against any reasonable objections of those concerned if they are outweighed by the public interest.

While recognising the concerns expressed by the families about the amount of notice given (they were first contacted by Panorama on 26 July 2024, over two weeks before the programme’s transmission) and the adequacy or otherwise of the information given to them about what the programme would contain, the ECU considered that the approaches to Mrs Webber and Mr O’Malley-Kumar, made on the understanding that they would notify other family members, were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Guidelines.  Similarly, Panorama contacted James Coates on the understanding that he was the family’s main representative in dealings with the media.  However, it transpired that one of his brothers was not aware of the plans for the programme, and there was nothing in the programme’s records that enabled the ECU to conclude that sufficient steps had been taken by Panorama to ensure that he was notified (bearing in mind that the Coates brothers are adults living independent lives rather than a family unit living together).  Although this had no bearing on the validity of the programme’s journalism, it was not in keeping with the requirements of the Guidelines, and this aspect of the complaint was upheld.

Partly Upheld