Solicitors for Thomas and Sean McGuinn, trading as Mac Aviation Limited, complained about an article headlined ‘Minister aided wanted trader’. The article reported that the Science Minister, Conor Lenihan, made representations to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation on behalf of Thomas McGuinn, whom it stated was now wanted in America for selling military technology to Iran in defiance of international sanctions. The complainants’ solicitors called on the newspaper to offer, at the very minimum, a right of reply. It also called for the publication of an apology.
The newspaper stood over the accuracy of its article, and said that it had tried, prior to publication of a number of previous articles about the complainants, to contact them in advance of publication, but they had refused to comment. It offered to publish an interview with the complainants, and to publish a fair, balanced and accurate account of same, or to publish a letter to the editor of reasonable length, the final wording of which could be approved by the complainants or their legal representative. The complainants turned down both offers.
Some of the statements complained about in the article were not reported as fact, but were allegations attributed to US authorities. A statement complained about describing Mr Thomas McGuinn as a convicted criminal was factually correct: while the complainant disputed the seriousness or relevance of the conviction concerned, the reference to him in this respect was not inaccurate, since he did have a criminal conviction in the US. In relation to a number of other statements complained about under Principle 1 of the Code, the complainants did not submit independent or verifiable evidence to prove that these statements were inaccurate. In these circumstances, the offer made by the newspaper to publish the complainants’ side of the story was sufficient remedial action on its part to resolve the complaint made under Principle 1.
The complainants’ solicitors did not dispute that the newspaper had endeavoured to contact their clients in advance of the publication of a number of previous articles about them when their clients refused to comment. By making efforts to contact the complainants in advance of publication on a number of occasions the newspaper showed that it had strived for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of the information contained in the article, and the complaint under Principle 3 is therefore not upheld.
