dev

Zia Yusuf has made an extraordinary series of public statements presenting alleged criminal conduct by ITV journalists as established fact, in an apparent attempt to intimidate and silence the free press. He does not say “Reform alleges that…” or “the journalists may have committed…”. He repeatedly states that criminal offences were committed by people who, as far as the public record shows, have not been charged or convicted of those offences. If these serious allegations cannot ultimately be substantiated, Yusuf could have exposed himself to significant civil liability, including a potentially serious defamation claim. Let’s take his five claims. “They forged a passport.” This is a serious criminal allegation, not an established fact. There is a potentially relevant offence under the Identity Documents Act 2010, but whether it was committed depends on precisely what document was created or altered, what the journalist knew and the statutory intention involved. Yusuf has converted an allegation about what happened to a document into a definitive declaration that a criminal offence was committed. That is a very different thing. “These crimes carry up to 10 years in prison.” This is pure rhetorical intimidation. A maximum sentence attached to an offence does not establish that the offence has occurred. “They committed a criminal offence by being paid to canvass” and “almost certainly altered the results.” This is where Yusuf’s argument becomes particularly misleading. These journalists were not paid by ITV to canvass for Reform. They were paid by ITV as undercover investigative journalists. Their participation in Reform campaign activity was part of maintaining their undercover identities. ITV did not employ them to promote Reform candidates, procure votes or act as Reform canvassers. Yusuf then claims they “almost certainly altered” election results, without producing evidence that they changed a single vote. That is a disputed interpretation of the law followed by an entirely unsupported claim about election outcomes. “They lied to a veteran and left him violated.” This is emotive rhetoric, not an identified criminal offence. Undercover journalism necessarily involves deception where revealing the journalist’s identity would defeat the investigation. Pretending otherwise is simply to misunderstand how undercover journalism works. “This is unprecedented.” It isn’t. British journalists have used false identities, covert recording and deception for decades to investigate corruption, criminality, racism and misconduct. These are established investigative techniques, subject to the law and broadcasting regulation, not some novel weapon invented to target Reform. A free press is not supposed to obtain permission from the political parties it investigates. Undercover journalism does not suddenly become criminal simply because the people being investigated object to what it uncovered. If you want to understand the danger of political parties with vast financial resources using litigation and legal threats to pressure the press, this is what it looks like. We have already seen Donald Trump use lawsuits and legal threats against major news organisations to prevent them exposing his conduct. Now Reform is threatening journalists with police action and “relentless” legal proceedings to silence them.