Complaint
A viewer complained that, as well as conducting his interview with the Prime Minister in a biased and offensive manner, Andrew Marr had given a misleading impression of the record of the Conservatives in relation to the legislative issues highlighted by the case of the London Bridge attacker Usman Khan.
Outcome
The general conduct of the interview was in keeping with the ±«Óãtv’s normal editorial standards as they apply to interviews of this kind. However, in the course of an exchange which was often less than clear about a complex legal issue, Andrew Marr made comments which viewers would have taken to imply that the Government could have prevented Usman Khan’s early release, and that it had done nothing since 2010 to tighten the rules on sentencing for terrorist offences. As it was accepted at the time that Usman Khan’s release date could have been altered only by retrospective legislation, and as the Government had lengthened the minimum early release from a half to two thirds of the original sentence, both implications were misleading.
Partly upheld
Further action
The programme team has been reminded of the need to confirm the full legislative background of cases that span different governments.Â