The Registrar and Chairperson of the BCCSA were under the impression that the Complainant was, 
indeed, complaining about a contravention of the Code and, accordingly, the matter was referred to a Tribunal. The Complainant’s further correspondence, which the Registrar only received after a Tribunal had heard the matter, however, made it clear that the Complainant was not of the view that the Code had indeed been transgressed. She, however, complained about the presenter’s having been insensitive. It was permissible for the BCCSA to take note of the new material, since the initial intention, as conveyed to the Complainant, was to hear the matter ten days later. The Complainant indicated that she would not attend the hearing on the 11th October. However, she added to her written argument on the afternoon after we had already heard the matter, obviously believing that the matter would only proceed on the 11th.
The BCCSA may only deal with complaints that are claimed to amount to a contravention of the Code. Of course, the Registrar is entitled to reject complaints which do not make out a prima facie case of a contravention of the Code. Since remarks which are made in regard to pending court cases could amount to a contravention of Clause 12.2 of the Code, she decided to refer the matter to me.
The jurisdiction of the BCCSA is, in fact, dependent on a complaint which alleges that a contravention of the Broadcasting Code has taken place. Where a contravention of the Code is not alleged, the BCCSA cannot simply claim jurisdiction of its own volition. The Tribunal was, accordingly, not permitted in law to come to a decision on the matter.
The matter was removed from the roll of the BCCSA.