In relation to “quit”, the ECU noted that the circumstances of Ms Braverman’s resignation were not at issue in the interview which followed, so there was no requirement for Ms Kuenssberg to go beyond the fact of her resignation and into the question of whether she had any choice in the matter.  In relation to “inadvertently”, the ECU noted that the breach of the Ministerial Code which occasioned Ms Braverman’s resignation consisted of sending an official document from a personal email account, and that it could be inferred from her resignation statement that she had not been aware that this constituted a breach at the time of sending.  It therefore could not be said with certainty that she had not acted inadvertently in relation to the issue which warranted her resignation.  This might have fallen short of justifying Ms Kuenssberg’s choice of words if the inadvertency or otherwise of Ms Braverman’s actions had been a matter of dispute following her resignation, but the ECU found no evidence that it had been (the main argument at the time having been about the gravity or otherwise of the breach).  In those circumstances, the ECU judged that, even if “inadvertently” were not accurate, the inaccuracy would not have been material to the audience’s understanding of the matters under discussion in the interview which followed Ms Kuenssberg’s introduction.  There being no material inaccuracy in Ms Kuenssberg’s wording, the ECU did not find that any breach of impartiality arose from them.

Not Upheld