Re Funny Money. TX 19:00 on June 15, 2005, BBC One.

Paul Atkinson made this Freedom of Information request to British Broadcasting Corporation This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by British Broadcasting Corporation.

Good morning.

These questions were sent via email to Simon Alford, head of the press office on December 16, 2021.

They were re-sent to Mr Alford on January 7, 2022.

A hard copy of the questions has also been sent to Mr Alford.

No response has been provided by Mr Alford, or the BBC.

Please can you forward a copy of this correspondence to the director general, as the BBC does not publicise a means by which matters can be brought directly to the attention of Tim Davie.

Re Funny Money. TX 19:00 on June 15, 2005, BBC One.

Breaches of BBC Producers’ Guidelines.

The importance of following the BBC’s editorial framework was described by Greg Dyke on the first page of the Producers’ Guidelines 2000:

"Our staff, those freelancers working with us, and the independent producers we commission - all need to be familiar with these Guidelines and to apply their underlying principles.

This is more than just a moral responsibility; it is also a contractual obligation for everyone who makes programmes for the BBC."

As reported by the Daily Mail on December 9, 2021:

"The BBC broadcast the film, including the pair’s secretly filmed footage, two years later – even though Raven had been jailed and More was on the run.

Miss Campbell, then a producer specialising in undercover crime documentaries, was More and Raven’s senior handler.

She told police she did not ask them how they obtained information. She was criticised by a judge in a trial related to the pair’s counterfeiting programme for allowing them to operate without effective scrutiny."

In relation to the criticisms levelled by Judge Bernard Lever at Fiona Campbell and Peter Horrocks, as reported by the Daily Mail, a spokesperson for the BBC said:

"The BBC and its then employees accepted the overall findings of the judge. As we said and as was reported at the time, the BBC made a number of changes to its editorial guidelines which considerably tightened up the procedures around investigations into crime and around undercover filming."

Questions
1. Why did the BBC change its editorial guidelines in response to Judge Lever’s ruling, when he made no criticism of the guidelines themselves?
2. Did the BBC conduct any investigation into the making of the Funny Money/Licence to Print Money programme, and associated breaches of the Producers’ Guidelines by Peter Horrocks, Philip Wright and Fiona Campbell?
3. If no investigation was conducted into Miss Campbell, was this precluded by her resignation?
4. Were the breaches of the Producers’ Guidelines considered in the promotion of Peter Horrocks to the Head of Television News in September 2005?
5. According to the interview under caution that Fiona Campbell was required to undertake as a criminal suspect on August 11, 2003, she said that she believed that both Christopher Guest More Junior and James Raven had convictions for violence described by her as ‘ABH or GBH’. What risk assessment, vetting procedure, CRB or reference check from Channel 4, if any, were undertaken by Miss Campbell in relation to the engagement of known violent criminals as undercover BBC TV reporters?
6. Did Fiona Campbell seek any guidance from the editorial policy department or the legal department, or Peter Horrocks, or any other member of staff, in relation to the hiring of Guest More Junior and Raven?
7. When a series producer was informed by prospective employees/freelance staff of criminal convictions for violence, did the BBC have a policy or procedure to handle such eventualities?
8. When Fiona Campbell was rehired by the BBC in 2010 as commissioning executive, factual commissioning, was any consideration given in the recruitment process to the ruling of Judge Bernard Lever, insofar as it related to her professional competence and breaches of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines?

Possession of TOP SECRET stolen NCIS document.

BBC producer Gregor Stewart told Chester Crown Court that in 2002 James Raven and Christopher Guest More Junior, had allowed him to read a TOP SECRET intelligence document stolen from the National Criminal Intelligence Service.

The NCIS document had been contained in a bag snatched from Det Insp John Phoenix at Piccadilly railway station in Manchester on May 1, 2002.

The ‘sixty or seventy pages’ shown to Gregor Stewart by Raven and Guest More Junior at Raven’s home in Manchester, named organised crime groups active in North West England and revealed how NCIS had infiltrated the OCGs with undercover police officers and covert human intelligence sources.

Mr Joel Bennathan QC, on behalf of Christopher Guest More Junior, said the BBC undercover reporter used the stolen NCIS intelligence document, a copy of which was found by the police following a raid on the home of his business partner, to identify criminals who could be targeted for media research.

Questions
1. Did Gregor Stewart inform the BBC that Guest More Junior and Raven were in possession of what he told Chester Crown Court was what he believed to be ‘stolen’ property?
2. If Gregor Stewart did inform Fiona Campbell, Peter Horrocks or any other member of BBC staff, what action was taken, if any?
3. Did Fiona Campbell see or possess the stolen NCIS document or extracts thereof?
4. Did Fiona Campbell know that Guest More Junior and Raven had the stolen NCIS document?
5. Did Peter Horrocks see or possess the stolen NCIS document or extracts thereof?
6. Did Peter Horrocks know that Guest More Junior and Raven had the stolen NCIS document?
7. Were BBC employees allowed to possess and use stolen police intelligence in 2002 - 2003?
8. Does the BBC intend to investigate current employees Fiona Campbell and Gregor Stewart in relation to the possession / alleged possession of stolen TOP SECRET NCIS documents?

Covert Human Intelligence Source.

After Fiona Campbell recruited Christopher Guest More Junior and James Raven, whom she believed to be violent criminals, Miss Campbell says she signed up to be a police informer for the City of London Police.

Questions
1. When Fiona Campbell believed she had signed up to be a police informer, what criminal offences did she believe she was authorised to commit?
2. Did Fiona Campbell commit any criminal offences when she believed she was a police informer?
3. As Ms Campbell says she told the BBC legal department and Peter Horrocks that she had signed up to be a police informer, does the BBC simply accept that their staff can perform a duel role as a staffer and a police informer?

The criminality of Christopher Guest More Junior.

According to the testimony of Christopher Guest More Junior, and supporting evidence, he says he was a criminal long before he committed murder at Burnt House Farm on June 19, 2003 and for 16 years thereafter. The offences that Guest More either admitted to, or which must have been committed by him are dominated by dishonesty and misrepresentation.
If the offences had all been committed in the UK, Guest More’s charge sheet would have been damning:
 Possession of cocaine contrary to Section 5 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
 Fraudulent evasion of income tax, in relation to cash payments for work undertaken wilfully undeclared to HM Revenue and Customs, contrary to Section 106A of the Taxes Management Act 1970.
 Fraud by misrepresentation in a finance agreement for a Porsche Boxster motor vehicle, in which Christopher Guest More Junior falsely claimed to have been working for the BBC for six years on an annual salary of £80,000. In contravention of Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
 Handling stolen goods, namely a TOP SECRET NCIS document stolen on May 1, 2002, contrary to Section 22 (1) of the Theft Act 1968.
 Theft of cannabis and growing equipment from Burnt House Farm in Cheshire on June 19, 2003, contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.
 Possession of controlled substances with intent to supply contrary to Section 4 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
 Possession and use of a false identity document namely a British passport, in the name of Andrew Christopher Lamb, first issued on August 18, 2003, contrary to Section 4 of the Identity Documents Act 2010.
 Having custody and control of false financial instruments (e.g. credit/debit cards, birth certificate and EU ID card), contrary to Section 5 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.
 Obtaining property, money transfer(s) and a pecuniary advantage by deception contrary to Sections 15, 15A & 16 of Theft Act 1968.

Questions
1. Does the BBC accept that Christopher Guest More Junior was an active criminal during the course of his engagement by the BBC?
2. Does the BBC still stand by the undercover footage filmed by Christopher Guest More Junior, Chris More Senior and James Raven in relation to their work on the Crooked Britain series?

Post Production
Interviews under caution / witness statements.

Questions
1. Whilst the BBC have reportedly said that Guest More Junior and Raven were no longer working at the BBC at the time of the murder on June 19, 2003, do the BBC accept that they appointed two lawyers, Brian Spiro and Stephen Gentle to represent their interests, in relation to being interviewed under caution, prior to, and after, the murder?
2. How much did it cost to instruct the solicitors referred to above to represent the interests of the murder suspects?
3. Does the BBC accept that at the time of the murder, Christopher Guest More Junior, his father Chris More Senior and James Raven were involved in the post-production phase of the BBC Funny Money/Licence to Print Money programme, e.g. by being interviewed under caution and providing witness statements in relation to their work at the BBC?
4. Why did Fiona Campbell allow Chris More Senior to undertake secret filming on behalf of the BBC at Woodward Graphic Designs on October 15 and 17, 2002, when he had not contractual relationship with the BBC and says he had never even met or spoken to series producer Fiona Campbell or programme producer Philip Wright?
5. Why did the Fiona Campbell allow Chris More Senior to secretly record on behalf of the BBC when he had no knowledge of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines?
6. Does the BBC intend to investigate current employee Fiona Campbell in light of the new information revealed during the trials of Christopher Guest More Junior in relation to the Funny Money/Licence to Print Money production?
7. If the BBC does not intend to launch an investigation into the conduct of one of its’ most senior editors, Fiona Campbell, please explain why?

Yours faithfully,

Paul Atkinson

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

I have resubmitted the request privately.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Atkinson

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Paul Atkinson,

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as detailed in your email below. Your request was received on 08 January 2022. We will deal with your request as promptly as possible, and at the latest within 20 working days. If you have any queries about your request, please contact us at the address below.

The reference number for your request is RFI20220075.

Kind regards,

Information Rights

BBC Freedom of Information
BC2 A4, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TP

www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Good evening.

Thank you for your recent email, relating to a withdrawn FOIA request.

Upon receipt of this FOIA request, via the WhatDoTheyKnow platform, the BBC immediately sought a ‘review by the site administrators’ ostensibly, it appears, because of concerns around ‘personal data.’

I note in this regard, that the site administrators ‘have not hidden it [the request] at this time.’

In order to avoid undue delay and unnecessary administrative hurdles both for myself and indeed for the site administrators, the public request was withdrawn and resubmitted privately via email.

I have now received an email from the BBC, via WhatDoTheyKnow allocating a reference number of: RFI20220075 in relation to the withdrawn request.

I have also received an email from the BBC in response to my ‘private’ FOIA request. This has been allocated a different reference number of: RFI20220078, even though it is exactly the same as the (withdrawn) request published on WhatDoTheyKnow.

Please can you kindly advise:

Why you have proceeded with a withdrawn FOIA request?

And why you have allocated two reference numbers to the same request for information?

As the BBC is funded by a licence-fee, I am keen to avoid a waste of public money by unnecessarily processing the same FOIA request twice.

I should therefore be obliged if you would confirm which FOIA request you intend to proceed with - is it RFI20220075 or RFI20220078?

Yours sincerely,

Paul Atkinson

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Mr Atkinson,

We can confirm that we have received your request to withdraw this request made via this website. We will no longer process this request via this website.

Regards

Information Rights

show quoted sections