The review process reinforces the self-regulatory system. Quite rightly the Reviewer is not able to over-ride the decisions of the ASA Council members. But he is able to get them to think again if he judges their decisions to have been unreasonable or to have been based on inadequate information about the issues or the result of a flaw in the investigation.
Non-broadcast review cases
In 2007 I received 24 requests for review of non-broadcast cases, the same number as in 2006. Nine of these requests proved on examination to be ineligible (38% as compared with 22% over the nine years since I was first appointed). I discovered that in all but one of these nine cases the request was for a review of a decision by the ASA Executive that the original complaint did not justify investigation. If only those making the request had taken the trouble to check the Code they would have seen that my terms of reference make plain that I am there to review decisions made by the ASA Council and not those made by the Executive.
Last year I expressed my disappointment that about one-fifth of non-broadcast requests did not meet the basic tests of eligibility set out in the Code. It is even more disappointing to find that the position was even worse in 2007.
In 2007 I reviewed 15 adjudications about complaints against non-broadcast advertising. In four of these cases I concluded that the person making the request had raised issues which justified my asking the Council to think again. This compares with a proportion of 40% over the nine years since I was appointed. As has been the case in each of the past four years, the Council decided to reverse or to revise every one of the adjudications which I sent back to it.
Broadcast review cases
In 2007 I received only six requests for a review of adjudications about complaints against broadcast advertising, the same number as in 2006. Two of these were ineligible because they were out of time and there was no good reason for me to exercise my discretion to overlook that lateness. None of the four requests which I actually reviewed raised issues which justified my asking the Council to reconsider the published adjudication.
Finally a word about the time it takes me to deal with requests. For reviews not involving reference back to the Council I am glad to be able to report that I have been able further to improve the speed of turn round achieved in the past three years. I achieved an average of 27 days as against 32 days in 2006. There are of course limits to the scope for further speed of turn round if thoroughness is not to be impaired. For reviews in which the Council was involved, I was not able to do better than last year – 85 days as against 82 days in 2006.
Sir John Caines KCB
Independent Reviewer
