It is not known if freelancer Nick Wallis is a member of the national union of journalists but excerpts from their codes of conduct online page state here;
The code of conduct has set out the main principles of UK and Irish journalism since 1936. The code is part of the rules of the union.
The code’s purpose is to advise members, and other journalists, on how to carry out their work ethically. It has been used by journalists over the decades to challenge unethical instructions and produce content that is “honestly conveyed, accurate and fair”.
The code has been democratically agreed by NUJ members. The current code was updated in 2011 and forms part of the union rules as Appendix A.
A journalist:
- At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
- Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
- Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
- Differentiates between fact and opinion.
- Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.
- Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
- Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work.
- Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge.
- Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
- Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed.
- A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.
- Avoids plagiarism.
The union will support journalists who act according to the code. The union believes any journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code of conduct.
The union has been campaigning for years for a conscience clause in contracts of employment. This would give a contractual protection against being dismissed when journalists stand up for a principle of journalistic ethics.
Excerpts from the national union of journalists organisation code of conduct online page
And excerpts from clause 10 of the independent press standards organisation editors code of practice state here;
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent.
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
Excerpts from the independent press standards organisation editors code of practice online page
In 2020 Nick Wallis ‘fronted’ a ten part series for BBC radio 4. Excerpts from the BBC’s ‘Guidance’ on ‘Secret Recording’ state here;
Secret Recording from Outside Sources
Proposals to use secret recordings made by others must be referred to Editorial Policy prior to approval by a senior editorial figure or, for independents, by the commissioning editor. It is advisable to retain a record of the decision. If the BBC would not have considered it justifiable to gather the material under similar circumstances, approval will also be required from Director Editorial Policy and Standards.
Re-use of Secret Recording
We should consider public interest, privacy and fairness issues when proposing to re-use secretly recorded material.
(See Editorial Guidelines Section 13 Re-use, Reversioning and Permanent Availability)
The re-use of secretly recorded material must be referred before broadcast to a senior editorial figure or, for independents, to the commissioning editor. A record must be kept of the decision.
Considering the Subject and Behaviour to be Secretly Recorded
When considering who it is appropriate to secretly record, we should take account of legitimate expectations of privacy and the public interest.
(See Editorial Guidelines Section 7 Privacy: Legitimate Expectations of Privacy 7.1)
The subject to be recorded should normally be the target of any investigation, against whom there is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing or intended wrongdoing.
Any attempt to secretly record people who are not involved in committing the behaviour under investigation, especially vulnerable people or innocent victims of the behaviour, will need a strong public interest justification – the ends (i.e. the seriousness of the wrongdoing being exposed) should justify the means. In such cases, consideration should also be given to drawing up a protocol for those carrying out the recording, to minimise any infringements of the privacy of the vulnerable. Advice is available from Editorial Policy.
The subject of the secret recording may be a single and very specific individual target responsible for wrongdoing, or it may be a number of people with varying degrees of responsibility. Sometimes it may be appropriate to secretly record individuals who are representative of a particular group, or organisations who are representative of (for example) an industry, to explore patterns of behaviour in that group or industry. When we do that we will have to consider the public interest in exploring those patterns of behaviour, and whether it will be appropriate to identify the individuals or organisations in the broadcast material. (See below: Prima Facie Evidence – Social Research)
23rd March 2010 ~ Diana Garbutt Murdered
As referred to in Part 9 of Hornswoggler Nick Wallis & His ‘Great Post Office Scandal’ here, Diana Garbutt was murdered by her psychopathic husband Robin Garbutt in the early morning hours of Tuesday the 23rd of March 2010, and he went on to pretend he had been held up at gun point by non existent robbers.
Robin Garbutt’s murder of his wife Diana was premeditated, and to date he has chosen to attempt to groom, con and exploit anyone who will listen to his nonsense regarding pretend robbers.
2011
Excerpts from a 2011 Guardian article headed Husband guilty of murdering postmistress wife read;
Mr Justice Openshaw sentenced Garbutt to life in prison and told him he would serve a minimum of 20 years.
“There was no struggle, she never awoke,” the judge said. “He struck three savage blows, smashing her skull and causing her immediate death as clearly he intended.”
Garbutt hid the weapon across the road, then opened the shop as normal. “He feigned cheerfulness as he served customers as he attempted to deceive them that all was well,” the judge added.
He said Garbutt had told the same “ludicrous story from beginning to end”.
The judge said the defendant had shown no remorse, adding: “He has always accompanied his lies with sanctimonious lies of his love for her. By their verdict, the jury have exposed this as pure humbug. This was a brutal, planned, cold-blooded murder of his wife as she lay sleeping in bed.”
Excerpts from a Guardian article headed Husband guilty of murdering postmistress wife dated the 11th April 2011
2012
An ill thought out appeal made by Diana Garbutt’s killer, following his conviction for his murder was refused. Excerpts from a 2012 York Press article headed Robin Garbutt loses his conviction appeal read;
Three judges in London said that his conviction was safe.
He had argued that it should be overturned on the grounds that that newly disclosed Post Office accounting records going back to 2004 supported the credibility of his evidence and undermined part of the prosecution case, but the judges disagreed.
Lord Justice Hughes said the accuracy of the newly discovered Post Office records was not disputed.
The prosecution’s case was that “there could never have been an intruder” – there was no robbery and it followed that Garbutt had killed his wife.
The fresh material relied on in the appeal related to Post Office records going back to 2004.
It was submitted on Garbutt’s behalf that the pattern shown by the records “cannot be relied upon as demonstrating thefts of Post Office cash”.
Had the jury had the full records “it would have supported the defendant in something that he said, namely that he had always held large sums in the safe, and the jury would have been likely to take a different view of his credibility generally”.
Lord Justice Hughes said: “The premise on which this appeal has so well been argued is that the jury may have proceeded from theft to murder. “We have asked ourselves anxiously whether that might be so. We are clear that it cannot be.”
Excerpts from The York Press article headed Robin Garbutt loses his conviction appeal dated the 24th of May 2012
July ~ 2019
In July 2019 an email to Jon Robins from Stephanie (Hall) was published, now under the header What lessons, if any, have been learned following the exposure of Joan Albert’s killer’s innocence fraud in 2012/13?
An excerpt reads;
Many con artists have had their convictions overturned.. on technicalities. Their cases pollute the criminal justice system and MOJ movement and many academics, journalists and legal professionals further their careers because of cases like these but when you start digging and look a bit deeper the contamination of confirmation bias becomes clear and all is not as it seems
Excerpt from a 10th of May 2019 email published under the header What lessons, if any, have been learned following the exposure of Joan Albert’s killer’s innocence fraud in 2012/13?
April ~ 2020
An internet search for the judgement related to Diana Garbutt’s killer’s appeal throws up nothing, however Neil Wilby stated via twitter (here) on the 1st April 2020;
#RobinGarbutt CoA judgment not published on @BAILII. It is copyrighted and, in any event, came to me by way of privileged correspondence. Unable to share, therefore. At least, for now.
Neil Wilby
June ~ 2020
Also referred to in Part 9 here, was that Nick Wallis had apparently contacted Jane Metcalfe, who has been/and is being groomed, conned and exploited by Diana Garbutt’s killer, and many other people.
Again, Jane Metcalfe said of Nick Wallis;
He contacted me and said ‘How come we’ve never known about this case of Robin Garbutt? I can’t believe I don’t know about this case.’ And there’s hope that sometime we’ll do something on the case.
Jane Metcalfe – 7th June 2020
The above can be listened to here beginning from approximately 51:10, although it is not known exactly what date Nick Wallis first contacted Jane Metcalfe.
October ~ 2020
In October 2020 Neil Wilby was seemingly under the bizarre impression that Diana Garbutt’s killer had not acted alone, as can be seen in the screenshot below;
November ~ 2020
On the 17th of November 2020 Neil Wilby stated via Twitter here;
Good afternoon, @HiddenInjustice. The Robin Garbutt innocence claim is being reviewed by journalist, @nickwallis. He would like to speak to you, or contact you via email, if that can be arranged?
Neil Wilby
It is no real secret to those people within the ‘wrongful conviction movement’, familiar with Joan Albert’s killers innocence fraud, that @hiddeninjustice is a secondary victim of killer Simon Hall (See the ‘Quite A Hall Tale’ blog series here).
As a result of both Neil Wilby’s tweet and messages from someone else, contact was made privately by Stephanie (Hall) to Nick Wallis who stated in part;
Neil suggested you had been on the receiving end of some unpleasantness from the pro RB (sic) team’
Nick Wallis (17th November 2020)
Stephanie (Hall’s) reply, in part, was;
Re ‘Neil suggested you had been on the receiving end of some unpleasantness from the pro RB team’
I presume you mean RG = Robin Garbutt
Neil’s perception is interesting but incorrect
Stephanie (Hall) – 17th November 2020
Nick Wallis also stated;
Did Neil explain I am also trying to turn this into a podcast?
To that end once weve (sic) had a preliminary chat so you can get the measure of me – would you consider allowing me to record our conversation so i can put it into the podcast?
Nick Wallis (17th November 2020)
Sometime in early 2021 Stephanie (Hall) learned that Nick Wallis had mislead her from the very beginning of his communication with her and had secretly recorded her anyway.
It is not known who Nick Wallis may have shared parts, or all of his secret recording(s) with.
24/11/2022 – CCRC Refuses Killers 3rd Application
In a statement, the independent body said:
“Much of Mr Garbutt’s application to the CCRC focused on the Post Office Horizon scandal, which has led to a number of fraud and theft convictions of former Post Office workers being overturned, many after referral by the CCRC.
“The CCRC decided this argument could not assist Mr Garbutt, as figures from the Horizon system were not essential to his conviction for murder.
“Other issues concerning scientific evidence were also considered, and the CCRC has now made a final decision not to refer his case for an appeal.”
A 50-page report with full details of the CCRC’s findings was being shared with the Garbutt family’s legal team, it added.
Excerpts from the BBC’s article headed Robin Garbutt: Postmaster jailed for wife’s murder loses new appeal 24th November 2022
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 