Mr Gallagher, a partner in the legal firm of Gallagher Shatter, complained that the article, which was sub-headlined “Taxpayers foot bill as Shatter firm earns €700,000” was in breach of the Code because Mr Alan Shatter, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, had not practiced with the firm since his appointment as a member of the Cabinet in March 2011. He also complained that the article failed to provide a reasonable context or explanation for fees paid to his firm and that it implied that the firm of Gallagher Shatter wrongfully profited from acting for victims of institutional abuse.
The newspaper responded that it was willing to publish a statement acknowledging that Minister Shatter had not practiced with the firm since his Ministerial appointment, but declined to agree with the complainant’s request for the publication of a statement that the fees charged were appropriate, on the grounds that at no stage had the article suggested otherwise.
In the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, the article’s failure to clarify the present status of the Minister in relation to the firm concerned, combined with the sub-heading, was significantly misleading. In these circumstances, the statement which the newspaper offered to publish in response to this element of the complaint was appropriate and unequivocal, and was therefore sufficient to resolve the complaint under Principle 1.
However, the references in the article to the remuneration earned by the complainant’s firm which, as the article pointed out, was one of the “medium earners” from the redress scheme were, in the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, a legitimate exercise of journalistic judgment, and did not support the complainant’s assertion that this suggested that the firm had wrongfully profited from the fees paid.
Although Mr Gallagher complained that the article did not strive for fairness and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information and was therefore in breach of Principle 3, this complaint was not upheld because there was no evidence that the newspaper had obtained the information by misrepresentation, subterfuge or harassment, which, in the context of this Principle, is required to support a decision that the article was unfair or dishonest.
