GB News loses High Court battle over Rishi Sunak impartiality
Ofcom began an investigation into GB News days after the airing of ‘People’s Forum: The Prime Minister’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.GB News has lost a High Court bid to temporarily block Ofcom from sanctioning it following claims that a Q&A with Rishi Sunak broke impartiality rules.
The channel asked a judge to order that Ofcom could not complete its “sanctions process” amid a legal challenge over the regulator’s finding that the show with the then-prime minister in February breached its code.
Barristers for GB News said that the publication of the sanction would cause “irreparable damage” to its reputation, but in a ruling on Friday Mr Justice Chamberlain said that the “likely impact” on the channel had been “overstated”.
But he gave the channel the green light to challenge the finding that it had breached Ofcom’s rules in the High Court, and added that Ofcom has already pledged not to publish its sanction until the case had been heard.
Giving judgment at a hearing in London, the judge said: “There is significant public interest in allowing Ofcom to complete its process and publish its decision.”
He continued that the benefits of pausing the sanctions process were “firmly outweighed” by allowing it to continue, which he said would “promote public confidence” and “reinforce the importance of complying with the code”.
But he said that GB News’s case was “reasonably arguable” and its arguments “raise grounds of considerable public importance” which “should be considered at a substantive hearing”.
Ofcom began an investigation into GB News three days after the airing of a programme titled People’s Forum: The Prime Minister, which saw Mr Sunak answer questions from a studio audience and a presenter.
In a statement on its website on May 20, Ofcom said that it had reached a provisional view the programme “broke broadcasting due impartiality rules” and that it was a “serious and repeated breach” of its rules.
The regulator said that it received 547 complaints about the hour-long programme and that it found that the programme had not “challenged (Mr Sunak) or otherwise referred to significant alternative views”, and that GB News should have “taken additional steps” to ensure impartiality.
It added that it was “starting the process for consideration of a statutory sanction” against GB News, with potential sanctions including fines, directions not to repeat content or to broadcast a correction, and suspending licences.
Tom Hickman KC, for the channel, said on Thursday that the regulator had unlawfully found that the breach was “serious and repeated”, and that deciding on and publishing a sanction during the legal challenge would cause “irreparable damage”.
Anya Proops KC, for Ofcom, said in written submissions that the breach was the channel’s 12th since March last year and that it was “not arguable” that it had “erred in law” through its decision.
She continued that the bid to stop Ofcom from publishing the sanction was based on an “inevitably speculative presumption” of what the sanction would be, and that claims the channel would suffer reputational harm “do not withstand scrutiny”.
A further hearing in the case is expected to be held at a later date.