Martin Bashir: No evidence journalist rehired as cover-up - BBC report - BBC News
A BBC inquiry was carried out to find out how Bashir was able to return as a correspondent in 2016.
There is no evidence journalist Martin Bashir was rehired by the BBC to cover up the circumstances around his Diana interview, a BBC inquiry has found.

The review was set up to look at why Bashir became a correspondent in 2016 when questions already surrounded him.

Had those involved in his hiring known all they do now, he "would have never been reappointed", the report says.

Earl Spencer, brother of the princess, responded on Twitter, saying: "It won't end with this, I promise."

The report also says BBC bosses who rehired Bashir were told he had faked documents.

But because Princess Diana had provided a handwritten letter to say she had not been misled, Jonathan Munro - the then head of newsgathering, now deputy director of news - considered that the allegations were "spent".

The report said James Harding, the then head of news who also rehired Bashir, should have spoken to Tony Hall, who was director general at the time, about the matter.

Current BBC director general Tim Davie said the corporation would reflect on the findings.

Julian Knight, the MP who chairs the Commons culture committee, said it was concerned by the report, asking: "Where was the due diligence?"

Mr Knight said: "Senior members of the BBC knew [at the time of rehire] that Bashir had lied about the use of faked bank statements to gain access to Princess Diana."

Bashir, 58, is one of the most well-known journalists in the UK and his interview with Princess Diana for Panorama was a huge scoop for the BBC.

But last month's damning Dyson Report found Bashir acted in a "deceitful" way and faked documents to obtain access to Diana - and described him as "unreliable", "devious" and "dishonest".

Bashir was at the BBC until 1998, when he left to join ITV. He also made headlines for his 2003 interview with pop star Michael Jackson, and went onto work for various US television networks.

In September 2016, he returned to the BBC as religious affairs correspondent and was made religion editor in 2018. He resigned from that job in May, citing health reasons.

The new review - by senior BBC manager Ken MacQuarrie and published on Monday - was set up to find out why Bashir was rehired, when questions had already been asked about his conduct.

The report also found that previous controversies involving Bashir "were not given sufficient regard by James Harding".

These controversies include remarks Bashir made about former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, which led to him leaving his his job as a daytime chat host on US TV network MSNBC in 2013.

Five years earlier, while working for another US network, he was suspended and apologised for making lewd comments about Asian women.

Ken MacQuarrie's report was never going to be as explosive as Lord Dyson's, but because his focus was on much more recent events, he had the capacity to do terrible damage to the reputation of current BBC News personnel.

His report doesn't do that. It finds failings and oversights, but none nearly so egregious as the deception and cover-up that Dyson chronicled in his much more exhaustive analysis.

The BBC is scarred by what was previously reputed to be one of its great journalistic triumphs. But the injury pertains mostly to events from the 1990s.

Nevertheless, there is now a consensus that the rehiring of Martin Bashir was a mistake.

And, as MacQuarrie notes, those responsible for it cannot plead ignorance of the controversies attached to him at the time - which went far beyond the Princess Diana interview.

Mr Harding said that, being the person in charge of news when Bashir was rehired, "the responsibility sits with me".

"Today's report shows we chose the person we thought was the best candidate for the job," he said in a statement.

"He was appointed after a formal interview process and once references were taken and considered.

"As the report concludes, we didn't know then what we know now. Of course, if I had known, he wouldn't have got the job."

This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Tim Davie said Martin Bashir would not have been rehired if they had had full knowledge around events of the Princess Diana interview

In a statement, BBC director general Mr Davie pointed out that the report found the recruitment process "was targeted to find the right person for the role and it was conducted in good faith".

"While the report finds processes were largely followed at the time, it is clear we need to reflect on the findings to ensure consistent best practice is applied in our recruitment," he said.

"Finally, it is without doubt that had the organisation been aware of what is now publicly known because of the Dyson report Martin Bashir would have never been reappointed."
• None -Broadcast on BBC One on 20 November 1995, the interview was watched by more than 20m people
• None -At the time Princess Diana had been separated from Prince Charles for three years and they divorced the following year
• None - She famously told Bashir there were "three of us" in the marriage, referring to Camilla Parker Bowles

Mr Knight, said: "That the BBC considered rehiring Martin Bashir when there were high level doubts over his integrity stretches incredulity to breaking point.

"By this point, as the Dyson report concluded, senior members of the BBC knew that Bashir had lied about the use of faked bank statements to gain access to Princess Diana.

"If the BBC considered him 'unanimously' the best candidate, where was the due diligence that should have prevented the corporation from rehiring a former member of staff who had not told a very important truth? Where were senior level discussions?"

The committee will hear evidence from Mr Davie, Lord Hall, and Lord Birt - another ex-BBC director general - on Tuesday.

In a statement last month, Bashir apologised for mocking up the documents, which he said was a "stupid thing to do" and that he regretted it.

But he said he remained "immensely proud" of the interview and that the documents "had no bearing whatsoever" on Princess Diana's decision to do the interview.