Complaint
A man complained that articles published in the Irish Independent in two separate issues were in breach of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy), 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), 3 (Fairness and Honesty), 4 (Respect for Rights), 5 (Privacy) and 7 (Court Reporting). The articles were reports of court proceedings involving the complainant, which included a reference to earlier tribunal proceedings. The complainant maintained that the omission of certain evidence from the articles, and the inclusion of certain statements which he said were inaccurate, were breaches of the requirements of Principle 1 for truth and accuracy. He further argued that a reference in the articles to the earlier tribunal proceedings in which he was involved presented an incomplete, misleading and unconfirmed report as if it were fact, in breach of Principle 2; that the possibility that the articles were sourced from someone other than the journalist whose by-line appeared on the articles meant that they were neither honest nor fair and thus a breach of Principle 3; that the newspaper failed to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication, in breach of Principle 4; that his right to privacy under Principle 5 was breached by the publication of personal information; and that overall the articles were in breach of Principle 7 in that they were not a fair and accurate report of the court proceedings concerned. He also argued that the newspaper had highlighted certain evidence given in court for sensationalist and salacious purposes.
The newspaper replied that, on the basis of a transcript (which it supplied) of the earlier tribunal proceedings, it believed that any factual errors in the articles were of a minor nature in the context of the articles as a whole. The newspaper also maintained that it had striven to produce a balanced report of all the proceedings involved and that it believed that it had done this.
Decision
The complaint contained a number of alleged breaches of specific elements of the Code of Practice, and a number of more general complaints about the two articles. The decisions on the alleged breaches of specific elements of the Code of Practice are dealt with separately, below.
Principle 1
The complainant argued that, because of certain omissions, the newspaper had not striven for truth and accuracy. However, the newspaper’s two articles included information about the claims made by both parties, as well as an account of the principal elements of the judgment in the court case. On this basis, the articles cannot be considered to be untruthful or inaccurate.
While the complainant argued that the articles contained a number of more specific inaccuracies about a personal relationship that he had had in the past, in breach of Principle 1, the evidence that he offered in support of this claim was insufficient to support the view that the alleged inaccuracies were “significant”, as provided for under Principle 1.2.
Principle 2
The complainant argued that the re-publication of material from an earlier tribunal hearing amounted to the publication of conjecture and unconfirmed reports as if they were fact. The material complained of was, however, a repetition of allegations or claims which became part of the public domain as a result of the earlier hearings, and which were presented as such, and not as fact. The material complained of made it clear in all cases that the findings of the earlier tribunal had been in favour of the complainant. As this material was not presented as conjecture or as an unconfirmed report, it does not present a breach of the Code.
Principle 3
The complainant maintained that the journalist whose name appeared on one of the articles concerned was absent from the first court hearing and possibly from the judgement delivered at the second, and that the newspaper therefore had not striven for fairness and honesty. The newspaper maintained that the reporter was present in court. Principle 3 provides that newspapers shall strive for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information and that they shall not “obtain information, photographs or other material through misrepresentation or subterfuge, unless justified by the public interest.” An allegation that the reporter was absent from the courtroom, for whatever period of time, is not evidence that the acquisition and publication of the information concerned breached this Principle.
Principle 4
The complainant maintained that the newspaper failed to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication and, by omission of the complainant’s denials, allowed unfounded accusations and misrepresentation to be presented as fact. There is no requirement in the Code of Practice for a newspaper to check the truth or otherwise of claims or allegations made in the course of evidence given during court or tribunal proceedings, provided that the reports make clear that they are claims or allegations. In addition, there is no requirement on a newspaper to report all the details of contested evidence presented in such proceedings, and the omission of some evidence does not in itself present a breach of the Code.
Principle 5
The complainant claimed that publication of some factual personal information amounted to invasion of his privacy and home life. The publication of the information objected to by the complainant, where this is either part of the court or tribunal proceedings or is contained in statements made in such proceedings, does not breach Principle 5 of the Code of Practice, which specifically states that the recognition of the right to privacy “should not be interpreted as restricting the right to report judicial proceedings.”
Principle 7
The complainant maintained that the omission of some rebuttal evidence was a breach of the requirement for court reports to be fair and accurate and that, in choosing to ignore some evidence, the newspaper distorted the court report. It is not necessary for a newspaper to report all of the details of contested evidence presented in court, as long as it does not present contested evidence as fact, and the omission of some rebuttal evidence is not a breach of the Code.
In conclusion, the Press Ombudsman looked at the more general complaints about the two articles. Although the Code of Practice does not define fairness in any detail in relation to reports of court or tribunal proceedings, a reasonable person reading such reports has a right to expect that they contain elements of the evidence adduced by both sides, as well as a fair and adequate summary of the judgment. Newspapers have no control over the admissibility of evidence or the choice of witnesses in court or tribunal proceedings. Different newspapers take different editorial decisions about what they will and will not report from the law courts, and these decisions may well invite comment and criticism on grounds of insensitivity, taste or presentation, but do not for these reasons necessarily present a breach of the Code. Because newspaper accounts of court or tribunal proceedings are not, and do not purport to be, transcripts, litigants or witnesses may well take exception to the omission from such reports of evidence considered critical by them, but such reports cannot be considered to be unfair or inaccurate solely on the basis of the inclusion or omission of particular evidence.
Provided that newspaper reports meet these basic conditions, the abridgment of court proceedings required for summary publication in a newspaper, and decisions about their presentation, are matters for editorial discretion.
The basic conditions outlined above were, in the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, met in the articles that were the subject of the complaint. The complaint is therefore not upheld.
There was a substantial and unwarranted delay on the part of the newspaper in replying to the complainant’s initial letter of complaint. The newspaper has apologised to the Office of the Press Ombudsman for this delay, which it said was due to “internal issues”. The issues raised in this regard have occasioned a review of the procedures of the Office of the Press Ombudsman with a view to reducing or eliminating any unnecessary delays in the handling of complaints by newspapers.
22 September 2008
The Complainant appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.
