A watchdog’s draft report that found a BBC news item on Jeremy Corbyn had breached accuracy and impartiality guidelines has been put online by the Sunday Herald.

The BBC Trust’s provisional finding upheld a complaint about a piece by Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg on the Labour leader’s views on shoot-to-kill and national security.

The conclusions were leaked to the Herald newspaper last week, but the report is available in its entirety here bbc.pdf

The Trust was due to publish its decision on November 30th, but the watchdog is reviewing its initial findings after feedback from the BBC.

It is understood the BBC raised concerns about Kuenssberg not being spoken to by the Trust during its probe. No final decision has been reached.

The controversy surrounds a News at Six package on November 16th 2015 in the wake of the Paris terror attacks that killed 130 people.

Kuenssberg focused on security measures that the UK Government might introduce following the tragedy and she also included a clip from a longer interview she had carried out with Corbyn.

However, in a complaint to the Trust, which hears appeals about BBC editorial content, a viewer claimed the news item was inaccurate and biased.

According to the Trust report, Kuenssberg said on the prime-time News at Six slot: “Earlier today I asked the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn if he were the resident here at Number 10 whether or not he would be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris style attack.”

Corbyn responded: “I’m not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can. There are various degrees of doing things, as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing.”

However, Corbyn’s answer in the wider interview had been in relation to a general question about shoot-to-kill.

Kuenssberg had asked: “But if you were Prime Minister, would you be happy to order people - police or military - to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets?”

The complainant argued that the question in the original interview had been “substantively different” from how it was paraphrased in the subsequent news report.

In the draft report, the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) upheld a breach of accuracy, explaining:

“Trustees understood and sympathised with the pressures faced by journalists compiling reports in real time on major stories against tight deadlines. In this case it also entailed following a major terrorist event which had begun between 8 and 9 pm the night before (UK time) and had continued to unfold overnight.

“Trustees accepted that the Political Editor had scripted her report for the News at Six in good faith. But this was a critical question at a time of extreme national concern. The audience would have an expectation that a scripted item on its prime time television news programme on such a day would reflect with the greatest accuracy what the Leader of the Opposition had said on the matter.

“In this case the scripting was not sufficiently clear and precise and was not a wholly accurate paraphrase of the original questions, and therefore the item was not duly accurate.”

The complainant also argued that Corbyn was wrongly presented as opposing the government’s proposed security measures, whereas the full interview “showed that this was simply not the case”.

The report concluded: “The Committee decided there was a significant difference between what Mr Corbyn said and what the report inferred. This had led to a failure of due accuracy.”

On the impartiality aspect of the complaint, the provisional report stated that there was “no evidence of any intent to deceive or distort”.

However, the ESC concluded: “Trustees noted that the editorial guidelines place a responsibility on the BBC to take particular care when a “controversial subject” might be considered to be a ‘major matter’.

“They considered that the issue was a matter of intense debate which had reached a decisive moment in the controversy: three days after the Paris attacks and hours before the Prime Minister was due to make what the news item referred to as a “major speech on the threat that we face in this country”. Trustees considered that the effect of the failures to observe due accuracy had, on this occasion, also resulted in a failure of Impartiality.”

The “drafted finding” was circulated to the relevant parties last year, but the planned November publication date was delayed after the BBC requested more time to respond.

On December 16th, the Trust emailed the complainant: “I am writing to inform you of the decision of the Chairman of the ESC.

“He reviewed your comments and those by [BBC] News….He has decided that in the interests of fairness to the political editor the ESC will consider the decision afresh again in January in the light of comments by yourself and by News.”

The final decision will be published after the next meeting of the Trust’s ESC.

Kuenssberg was appointed BBC Political Editor in 2015 and was named Journalist of the Year at the Press Gazette's British Journalism Awards.

A BBC spokesperson said the Corporation had nothing further to add to an earlier statement, which read: “BBC News does not accept the assertions made and the complaint has been rejected on four separate occasions already.

“The Trust has not published a finding regarding this appeal and BBC News has further evidence it is still to present this month before that happens.”

The Sunday Herald also asked the BBC if Kuenssberg would like to comment, but none was provided.

The BBC Trust did not provide comment.