Police watchdog complains to Ofcom over Chris Kaba Panorama episode
The Independent Office for Police Conduct has asked for a public apology from the BBC.
A police watchdog has complained to Ofcom over an episode of Panorama about the shooting of Chris Kaba.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said it had gone to the broadcast regulator after demands for a public apology from the BBC were not met.
Gang member Mr Kaba was shot by police officer Martyn Blake after trying to ram his way past police cars in Streatham, south-east London, in September 2022.
The IOPC complained to the broadcaster after the Panorama episode initially aired without including its statement in reaction to claims by former regional director Sal Naseem.
He suggested that the murder investigation into Mr Blake was launched amid pressure over potential unrest, which is denied by the IOPC.
Mr Blake was cleared in October after an Old Bailey trial, with questions raised over whether he should ever have faced prosecution.
He has yet to discover whether he will face internal Metropolitan Police misconduct proceedings over the shooting.
The IOPC complained that the programme did not make clear that Mr Naseem no longer works for the watchdog, and that it was not given the proper right to reply to the claims over why the investigation was launched.
The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) found that the programme did make clear that Mr Naseem no longer worked for the IOPC, but accepted that the programme makers should have included the IOPC statement and made clear to the watchdog what claims were going to be made.
Its ruling concluded: “In relation to right of reply, the IOPC had contacted Panorama after becoming aware that the programme would include a contribution from an IOPC ‘insider’ and, in answer to an invitation to respond to criticisms, had provided a statement, but as a result of oversight the statement was not used in the programme.
“In the ECU’s judgment Panorama should in any event have provided the IOPC with specific information about the claims to be made about it, and consequently found an element of unfairness to the IOPC.
“However it noted Panorama had taken subsequent action to include the IOPC’s point of view in the iPlayer version of the programme and the related online article, in terms which we considered sufficient to resolve this aspect of the complaint.”
An IOPC spokesperson said: “Having exhausted the BBC’s complaint procedure, in relation to its Panorama programme from November 2024 about the fatal shooting of Chris Kaba, we have decided to escalate our complaint to Ofcom.
“The IOPC was given no right to reply to serious criticisms made about the organisation within that documentary and despite providing a statement prior to its broadcast, the statement was not used.
“We are hugely dissatisfied that, despite admitting these two breaches of its own guidelines, the BBC has steadfastly refused to apologise publicly despite the IOPC providing evidence to show the serious reputational damage caused to the organisation as a result of the programme.
“In particular, the suggestion within that programme, that the IOPC was pressured to start a homicide investigation, was wrong and resulted in public criticism from a number of media organisations and individuals including concerns raised by the London Assembly and local councillors about the IOPC’s independence and motivations.
“Had we been aware this would be suggested, we would have strongly refuted it.”
In the programme, Mr Naseem said that when the IOPC launched its homicide investigation four days after the shooting, “It was fed back to us… that if we hadn’t done it at that time then it’s likely there would have been a level of disorder.”
The IOPC’s statement denying this has been added to the iPlayer version of the Panorama episode and online news stories.
It said: “The decisions to criminally investigate Sergeant Blake, and then refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), followed careful consideration of a significant amount of evidence gathered during our independent investigation and by applying the relevant legal tests which govern our work.”
