30/03/01 - BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION Adjudication

BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION

Complaint of unjust or unfair treatment from Mr Bernard O'Mahoney, submitted on 20 July 2000, about Tonight with Trevor McDonald broadcast by Granada Television on 13 July 2000.

Adjudication

1. Introduction

On 13 July 2000, Granada Television ("Granada") broadcast an edition of the current affairs programme Tonight with Trevor McDonald. The programme included a report on the portrayal of crime and violence in the media and stated that criminals were profiting from previous wrongdoing by publishing books detailing their exploits. The report referred to Mr Bernard O'Mahoney and his book Essex Boys and included footage of an interview with him. Mr O'Mahoney complained to the Broadcasting Standards Commission that he had been treated unjustly or unfairly in the programme.

2. The Complaint

Mr O'Mahoney complained that he had been treated unjustly or unfairly in that the programme had:

a) included an unrepresentative sample of his interview;

b) implied that he had been made "wealthy by his crimes";

c) implied that he had been responsible for the death of Leah Betts;

d) implied that he had been involved in the supply of illegal drugs and had committed crimes which were connected to the death of Leah Betts; and

e) failed to provide him with an opportunity to respond to claims by Mr and Mrs Betts that he was responsible for the death of their daughter.

a) Sample of interview

Mr O'Mahoney said that he had attended the premiere of Essex Boys, a film inspired by the murder of three men in Essex in 1995, to show support for two men who had been convicted of those murders. He said that he believed that the men were innocent of the crime. He said that he had been questioned by the programme-makers on the subject of criminals "cashing in" on their crimes and had told them that he did not agree with the glamourisation of crime and did not agree with the film. Referring to the re-issuing of his book Essex Boys, he said that the programme-makers had asked him if he had been "cashing in" and he had informed them that he had only re-issued the book to highlight the plight of the two men. He said that his interview had been edited so that his views were misrepresented.

Granada said that the report had dealt with criminals "cashing in" on the media's appetite for crime and the underworld and had featured two "well known criminals" as well as Mr O'Mahoney. Granada said that Mr. O'Mahoney's comments had been fairly edited and had fairly represented his point of view. They said that his opinion of the film, and the fact that he had attended the premiere to show support for two men he believed had been wrongly convicted of murder, had not been relevant to the item.

Granada said that Mr O'Mahoney had not presented a clear and absolute condemnation of the film as glamourising crime and given the re-titling of his book with the film's title it would have been disingenuous to have done so.

Granada said that Mr O'Mahoney's contribution had been fairly dealt with in relation to the subject matter of the item and had begun with three questions and answers in which Mr O'Mahoney had acknowledged having renamed the book to "capitalise on the success or otherwise of the film".

Mr O'Mahoney said that his opinion of the film and the fact that he had attended the premiere to show support for the two men convicted of the murders had been relevant. The programme's commentary and the statements made by Mrs Betts, the mother of Leah Betts, would have left the viewer with the impression that he had attended the premiere to exploit the deaths of his associates and promote his book in order to increase sales. He said that he had only attended the premiere to highlight what he believed to be an injustice, namely the conviction of the two men.

Mr O'Mahoney said that he had condemned the film as glamourising crime and that it had not been hypocritical of him to hold that view. He said that he had re-named his book to highlight the very injustice he believed had occurred. He said that this had also been the only reason why he had given the interview to the programme-makers and why he clearly stated that he had not cared about the money he had received for the book .

b) Made "wealthy by his crimes"

Mr O'Mahoney said that the programme-makers had allowed Mr Paul Betts, the father of Leah Betts, to state that he had been made "wealthy by his crimes" and had implied that he had only been interested in "lining his pockets".

Granada said that the programme had stated that Mr O'Mahoney had written a book about "drugs and thugs" in Essex and had told the story of what had been behind the gangland murders of three "associates" of his. It had made clear that that the same shooting had inspired the film Essex Boys, but that Mr O'Mahoney had had nothing to do with the film. They said that the programme had stated that Mr O'Mahoney had "cashed in" on the film to exploit his links with the murdered drug dealers. It stated that his publishers had re-launched his book to coincide with the film and had renamed it with the film's title.

Granada said that Mr O'Mahoney had received royalties from his book and had been paid £8,000 by the Daily Express to give the "ins and outs" on the club where he had worked at the time of Leah Berts' death. He had been paid a substantial sum for his contribution to a Channel 4 Dispatches programme concerning drugs and clubs in Essex that had been transmitted in 1996. Granada said that there could be no doubt that Mr. O'Mahoney had profited from these issues.

Mr O'Mahoney said that he had not received an advance for his book, nor money for newspaper serialisation. He said that he had rightly received £8000 from the Daily Express for exposing the "disgraceful" way in which the nightclub he had worked at had been run.

Granada said that Mr O'Mahoney had received payment solely because of his criminal past and associations, not for works of fiction but for writing about and recalling actual events. This did amount to "cashing in" on crime.

Granada said that Mr O'Mahoney had subsequently appeared on an edition of the BBC programme Kilroy in which he had acknowledged that he had written his book to make money.

c) The death of Leah Betts

Mr O'Mahoney said that the programme had included a statement by Mr and Mrs Betts that had alleged that he had been responsible for the death of Leah Betts and that they hated him.

Granada said Mrs Betts had said in the programme that Mr O'Mahoney was "one of the main real-life characters" in the death of her daughter. Mr Betts had said that he hated Mr O'Mahoney because he believed that he had been responsible, as he had been the head doorman at the club where his daughter had bought the drugs that had resulted in her death.

Granada said that on the back cover of the book Essex Boys it stated that it was the true story of the rise of one of the most violent and successful criminal gangs of the 90s whose reign of terror had finally terminated when the three leaders had been brutally murdered. It stated that they had built the drug-dealing organisation which had supplied the drugs that had killed Leah Betts. It also referred to Mr O'Mahoney as a "key member" of one of the "most feared gangs" of that decade. Granada said that the book was dedicated on its final page to the victims of the gang's reign and listed the name of Leah Betts among those "poisoned by ecstasy supplied by the firm".

Granada said that the book detailed the activities of the gang of which Mr O'Mahoney had been a significant member and its role in the death of Leah Betts. Mr. O'Mahoney explained in the book how the drug dealer who sold the pill which had killed Leah Betts had been "licensed" by him and how he had previously negotiated payment to himself for such "licensing". He also explained his part in shifting or maximising blame on the friend of Leah Betts who had physically bought the drugs on her behalf.

Granada said that the comments made by Mr and Mrs Betts in the programme had been fair comment and justifiable and had not called for any response from Mr O'Mahoney as they had effectively summarised what Mr O'Mahoney himself said in his book. Neither Mr nor Mrs Betts had suggested that Mr O'Mahoney had been specifically and directly responsible for their daughter's death.

Mr O'Mahoney said that Mr Betts was aware of all the people involved in the supply of the drugs that killed his daughter and that anyone aware of this information could not possibly have targeted him as the focus of blame for Leah Betts' death.

Granada said that Mr O'Mahoney had stated that he had been a "vital cog" that had allowed drug dealers to ply their trade. He had stated that although he had known that drug dealing had been happening at the club where he had worked he had done nothing to prevent it. Granada said that, in the circumstances, Mr O'Mahoney must accept an element of responsibility.

d) Involvement in the supply of illegal drugs and crimes connected to the death of Leah Betts

Mr O'Mahoney said that the programme had implied that he had dealt in drugs and had committed crimes that had led to the death of Leah Betts. He said that the relevant police investigation had concluded that he had no involvement in illegal drags or drag dealing. He said that he had not been charged with any crime in relation to the death of Leah Betts.

Granada said that the programme had not suggested that Mr O'Mahoney had dealt in drugs nor had it said that any criminal act on his part had led to Leah Betts' death.

In response, Mr O'Mahoney said that viewers could not have come to any conclusion other than that he had dealt in drags and had committed crimes that had led to the death of Leah Betts. Mr and Mrs Betts had stated that they hated him and he had been described as a man "cashing in" on crime.

Granada said that in the same edition of the BBC programme Kilroy Mr O'Mahoney had acknowledged his involvement and role in drug trafficking in Essex and accepted part responsibility for another drug related death.

e) Opportunity to respond

Mr O'Mahoney said that he had no idea that Mr Betts would appear in the programme. He said that it had been unfair to interview him about one thing, namely the question of "cashing in" on wrongdoing, and then introduce this separate subject. He said that he had not been allowed the opportunity to respond to the serious allegations made by Mr Betts.

Granada said that the principal allegation of criminals cashing in on crime had been put to Mr. O'Mahoney and his response had been properly used in the programme. They said that the allegations made by Mr and Mrs Betts had rehearsed in different terms the situation as Mr O'Mahoney had described in his own book. It had not been necessary to put these well-documented views to Mr. O'Mahoney for further response.

Mr O'Mahoney said that his responses to the programme-makers' questions concerning "cashing in" on crimes had not been put across in the very strong terms in which they had been given. He said that it had been unreasonable not to provide him with an opportunity to respond to the allegations made on the ground that he had addressed the issues in his book. He said that only a few thousand people had read his book whereas millions of people would have seen the programme.

3. Evidence before the Commission

The Commission had before it a complaint form and written submissions from Mr O'Mahoney, and written submissions in response from Granada. It viewed a recording of the programme and read a transcript.

4. The Commission's Findings

Having read a transcript of Mr O'Mahoney's unedited interview, the Commission considers that the programme fairly represented his views and that there was no unfairness to Mr O'Mahoney in the editing of his interview.

The Commission considers that the programme fairly reported the fact that Mr O'Mahoney had benefited from the publication of details relating to criminal acts and associations. It notes that the programme did not state that Mr O'Mahoney dealt in illegal drugs or that any criminal act on his part had led to the death of Leah Betts. The Commission considers that the programme clearly and fairly represented Mr O'Mahoney's involvement in events surrounding Leah Betts' death. It therefore finds no unfairness to Mr O'Mahoney in these respects.

The Commission considers that Mr O'Mahoney was given a reasonable opportunity during his interview to respond to allegations that he was "cashing in" on crime. It notes that Mr O'Mahoney's views relating to the death of Leah Betts were well- documented and considers that, in the circumstances, it was not incumbent upon the programme-makers to afford him a further opportunity to respond to the comments made in the programme by Mr and Mrs Betts. The Commission therefore finds no unfairness to Mr O'Mahoney in this respect.

Accordingly, the complaint is not upheld.
30 March 2001
Mr David Boulton
Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin
Ms Maggie Redfern