An investigation into possibly one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in recent years hold important lessons for how diverse programmes are commissioned and financed

There could be no stronger argument for the need for more diversity behind the camera than the news on Friday (12th February 2021) that the case of a nurse who is currently serving life in prison for murdering four patients and attempting to kill a fifth, has been referred to the Court of Appeal.

Diversity behind the camera could mean a possible wrongful conviction is overturned and an innocent man is released from prison. Let me explain...

On the 4th October 2011, possibly the most important programme I have ever overseen was broadcast. It was originally shown only in Scotland after being rejected by the BBC commissioners in London. Although later on the strength of the Scottish journalism the London gatekeepers eventually agreed to pick it up and we made a Panorama on the issue in 2014.

It was an investigation into a possible miscarriage of justice.

The Colin Norris is a convicted serial killer currently serving 30 years. He was a nurse who supposedly poisoned at least five elderly patients with insulin – killing four of them in 2002.

The 2011 programme was staffed by a lot of journalists who used to work on the series “Rough Justice” - which specialised in bringing miscarriage of justices to light. Our film on Colin Norris (BBC Scotland Investigates: The Hospital Serial Killer), revealed new scientific evidence that casts doubt on the insulin poisoning that he was convicted for. As well as the new scientific evidence my team also discovered other people that had died of similar low blood sugar symptoms as the 5 “victims”, but these other people died when Colin Norris was not on duty. This meant that either there was someone else murdering these people or, more likely as the new scientific evidence points to, they all died of natural causes. If our investigation is right an innocent man could be serving time for four murders and an attempted murder he did not do.

The Scottish programme was covered extensively in the Tartan press (The Herald, Scotsman, Daily Record and Scottish versions of the UK papers) and received an above average audience. The new evidence was then submitted to the criminal case review commission to decide if a miscarriage of justice had in fact taken place.

It is the evidence in that programme that has now contributed to it being referred to the Court of Appeal.

For the purpose of this blog post and the importance of media diversity, however, the key fact is that Colin is Scottish. As I stated at the start this potential miscarriage of justice was not picked up by network television. In fact, it was only commissioned by me because I had a pot of money to highlight issues that are either of interest to a Scottish audience and / or are about something specific to Scotland.

Moreover when the same team made a BBC Panorama programme into the issue in 2014 one of the deciding factors for the Panorama gatekeepers, based in London, to agree to commission it was because I cross subsidised it with my Scottish pot of money. I effectively match-funded the London money making it considerably more attractive for the London executives to commission it.

The implications for people interested in diversity in television is obvious.

How many important stories are falling through the cracks because there is not specific ring-fenced money for looking at a specific group of people? Is there a similar miscarriage of justice film about a disabled person that hasn’t had a top BBC team of journalists looking at it because there isn’t ring-fenced disability money or TV programmes? What important black issues are we failing to cover because there isn’t ring-fenced money to make black specific programmes with allocated slots? By their very definition, we will never know the answer to those types of questions.

The truth is all broadcasters and all genre commissioners are far better at commissioning diverse programmes in the mainstream than they were twenty years ago, both in terms of on-screen talent and issues. One only has to look at the recent Small Axe series and the great journalism Rianna Croxford regularly produces. And I do not want to go back to the days when different diverse groups were given their own programmes and ring-fenced money but those films were nearly all broadcast at obscure times when no-one was watching.

However what the original 2011 programme “BBC Scotland Investigates: The Hospital Serial Killer” did reveal is that ring-fenced money for specific communities, regions or nations can sometimes uncover important stories that would otherwise be overlooked.

What the later Panorama programme reveals is that broadcasters might want to explore the idea of a pot of money dedicated to match funding diverse productions in primetime, giving commissioners a real financial incentive, and reward, to commission more diversely.

Lastly, this is also an argument against diversity being relegated to an advisory role. Almost everyone in Scotland news could see the importance of this original investigation. We pitched it to the editors down in London, we advised the London gatekeepers and we used all our powers of persuasion but to no avail. An advisory role would not have made any difference.

It was only by people championing regional diversity having editorial power and finances that this investigation ever saw the light of day. And ultimately it could be the difference between possibly an innocent man being in prison or being freed.

(This blog post is based on a post originally posted in on October 2011 - "Lessons From A Serial Killer")
.